http://www.chathamhouse.org/audio-resource/182767 Guest co-editor Robert Falkner and Editor of IA Caroline Soper introduce this Rio+20 special issue. http://www.chathamhouse.org/audio-resource/182767 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:46:29 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182727 http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182727 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:32:52 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182726 http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182726 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:31:18 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182723 http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182723 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:22:39 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182722 This article traces the evolution of international environmental law and dialogue in the four decades from Stockholm, 1972, to Rio+20, 2012, with a focus on the changing dynamics of the discourse between developed and developing countries, and the corresponding interpretational shifts in the application of differential treatment in international environmental law - climate change law in particular. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182722 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:19:59 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182721 Many of the most pressing global environmental problems, including climate change, forest degradation and biodiversity loss, are governed by an array of mechanisms - legal, non-legal, governmental and non-governmental - in complex arrangements. Examining the combined effects of these international and transnational efforts on domestic or firm policies and practices requires expanding a focus on regime 'compliance' and 'effectiveness' to 'influence' factors from beyond state borders. To facilitate such a move, the authors develop a framework that distinguishes four distinct pathways through which actors and institutions influence domestic policies: international rules; international norms and discourse; creation of, or interventions in, markets; and direct access to domestic policy processes. Propositions are then developed on the conditions under which, and processes through which, actors and institutions affect domestic and firm policies and practices along each pathway. The framework is applied to the case of forest governance. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182721 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:15:58 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182720 The global environmental governance architecture is set to undergo major reforms, with the main decisions on reform to be taken at the June 2012 Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. Discussions on reform have focused on whether the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) should retain its institutional status as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly, or be transformed into a specialized agency - a World Environment Organization - of the UN. The choice of institutional form, however, cannot be made without reference to both the needs of global environmental governance, and the factors impeding the effectiveness of the current governance architecture. This article argues that the reasons for UNEP's shortcomings have little inherent connection to its institutional form, and cannot be resolved simply by a change in status. Deeper, yet probably easier to accomplish, reforms should focus on enabling UNEP to fulfill its intended role as an effective anchor institution for the global environmental governance architecture. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182720 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:10:41 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182719 This article argues that states, and especially international organizations, should actively support private sustainability governance (PSG) as part of the institutional framework for sustainable development, while steering private and public-private schemes towards good organizational practices and the pursuit of public goals. Engagement with PSG would help international institutions pursue their sustainability missions more effectively, promote the emergence of effective and legitimate private schemes, manage fragmentation, promote experimentation and learning, and enhance citizen participation.  http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182719 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:06:18 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182718 This article explores institutional diffusion in international environmental governance, specifying the conditions under which an existing set of institutions provides a template for new institutions. Prior institutional experiences can help to resolve bargaining problems, reduce transaction costs and provide information about likely performance. The authors discuss five examples of institutional diffusion in international environmental affairs and outline some causal mechanisms and conditions that facilitate or block the diffusion of institutional characteristics. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182718 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:00:13 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182717 Have environmental values become part of the normative structure of international society? Has the rise of global environmentalism led to a greening of international society? This article engages English School theory in an effort to examine the impact that global environmentalism has had on the social structure of International Relations. It argues that a primary institution of global environmental responsibility is emerging, and explores the relationship and tensions between environmental responsibility and the established primary institutions of sovereignty, international law and the market. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182717 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:57:43 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182716 Three trends that are deserving of more attention from scholars of international political economy and the environment (IPEE) include: the globalization of financial markets; the rise of newly powerful states such as China and India in the global economy; and the recent emergence of high and volatile commodity prices. Each of these structural trends - as well as their interrelationships - have important environmental consequences whose closer study enhances our understanding of the relationship between the international political economy and the environment. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182716 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:53:58 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182715 There is a widespread perception that power is shifting in global politics and that emerging powers are assuming a more prominent, active and important role. This article examines the role of emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC) in climate change politics and the extent to which their rise makes the already difficult problem of climate change still more intractable - due to their rapid economic development, growing power-political ambitions, rising greenhouse gas emissions and apparent unwillingness to accept global environmental 'responsibility'. By reviewing the developments in global climate politics between the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and Rio+20, this article unsettles the image of a clear shift in power, stressing instead the complexity of the changes that have taken place at the level of international bargaining as well as at the domestic and transnational levels. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182715 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:49:02 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182714 Environmental threats are bringing new geopolitical, economic and technological challenges to an already unstable world. We are entering a period of intensified environmental stress, in the form of accelerated ecological degradation and greater risk of shortage and disruption in energy and food supplies, as well as heightened political tensions over control of and access to resources.  Given these complex global challenges and the impending Rio+20 conference, it is time to reflect on what International Relations scholarship can contribute to our understanding of the global politics of sustainability. This special issue of International Affairs brings together established scholars who have made important contributions to research on international politics and environmental sustainability.  http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182714 Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:44:20 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/audio-resource/182537 NATO's 2012 Chicago Conference according to Andrew Dorman, and a look at the review articles with Deputy Editor Sabine Wolf. http://www.chathamhouse.org/audio-resource/182537 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:34:36 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182488 Wyn Q Bowen is Professor of Non-Proliferation and International Security at King’s College London and Director of the Centre for Science and Security Studies in the Department of War Studies. He has researched and written widely on nuclear security and proliferation issues, including The global partnership against WMD: success and shortcomings of G8 threat reduction since 9/11 (co-authored with Alan Heyes and Hugh Chalmers, 2011); ‘How China can strengthen interna¬tional nuclear security’ (with Ben Rhode and Shen Dingli, Survival 52: 3, 2010); ‘Silent partnership: the G-8’s nonproliferation program’ (with Alan Heyes, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 66: 2, 2010); Libya and nuclear proliferation: stepping back from the brink (2006); and The politics of ballistic missile non-proliferation (2000). He was a consultant to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 2001 to 2007, served as a weapons inspector with the UN Special Commission in Iraq from 1997 to 1998 and is currently a member of the International Nuclear Security Education Network. Paul Cornish is Professor of International Security at the University of Bath. He was Carrington Professor of International Security and Head of the International Security Programme at Chatham House from 2005 to 2011, having previously been Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London from 2002 to 2005. He has taught at the University of Cambridge and at the Joint Services Staff College and has served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Army. His work covers national strategy, counterterrorism, the ethics of the use of armed force, arms control and non-proliferation, cyber security and the future of international security. He is a member of the Chief of the Defence Staff ’s Strategic Advisory Panel and is a frequent commentator on national and international media. Matthew Cottee is a doctoral candidate at King’s College London in the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, where he is being funded under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation. His doctoral research explores the evolution of the ‘nuclear security’ regime and changing perceptions of the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. He has conducted research on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear security issues, including fieldwork in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, for projects run by CSSS and the Interna¬tional Centre for Security Analysis at King’s with funding from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, respectively. He is a participant in the Nuclear Scholars Initiative run by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. Andrew M Dorman is Professor of International Security at King’s College London ( Joint Services Command and Staff College) and is an Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House. His research focuses on decision-making and the utility of force, with a particular interest in British defence and security policy and European security institutions. He has been awarded research grants by the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy, the Leverhulme Trust, the Ministry of Defence and the US Army War College. He trained as a Chartered Accountant with KPMG, qualifying in 1990 before returning to academia. He has previously taught at the University of Birmingham and at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. Timothy Edmunds is a Reader in International Politics at the University of Bristol and has held previous academic positions at the University of Nottingham, International Institute for Strategic Studies, King’s College London and the Joint Services Command and Staff College. He has published widely on issues of civil–military relations and security sector reform in post-communist Europe, the western Balkans (particularly Croatia and Serbia) and more recently the UK, including nine books and numerous articles in academic journals. He is author of Security sector reform in transforming societies (2007) and co-author of Out of step: the case for change in the British armed forces (with Anthony Forster, 2007). Anthony Forster is Professor of Politics in the School of Government and Interna¬tional Affairs, Durham University. He has published widely on European foreign and security policy and civil–military relations, including ‘The military covenant and British civil–military relations’ (Armed Forces and Society 38: 2, 2012); ‘The military, war and the state’ (Defense and Security Analysis 27: 1, 2011); Out of step: the case for change in the British armed forces (co-authored with Timothy Edmunds, 2007); and Armed forces and society in Europe (2006). Ellen Hallams is a lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College of the UK Defence Academy. From April to June 2012 she will be a Research Associate at the Norwegian Insti¬tute of Defence Studies in Oslo. Her most recent book is The United States and NATO since 9/11: the transatlantic alliance renewed (2010). Her peer-reviewed articles include ‘NATO at 60: going global?’ (International Journal 64: 2, 2009) and ‘From crusader to exemplar: Bush, Obama and the reinvigoration of America’s soft power’ (European Journal of American Studies 1, 2011). She is currently co-editing a book entitled The Atlantic alliance in a decade of war (with Luca Ratti and Ben Zyla, forthcoming 2013) and is also working on a US Army War College funded project entitled Forging a new transatlantic bargain? US leadership of the Atlantic alliance during the Obama presidency. Christopher Hobbs is a Research Fellow at King’s College London in the Centre for Science and Security Studies, Department of War Studies. A physicist by training, he is currently funded by a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship to conduct research on nuclear security issues. His recent research has focused on policy options for protecting the ‘intangible’ aspects of nuclear security, such as knowledge relevant to nuclear weapons manufacture. He is a member of the World Institute for Nuclear Security and the International Nuclear Security Education Network. In January 2012 he organized an international professional development course in nuclear security education. Prior to taking up his current fellowship he was Deputy Director of the International Centre for Security Analysis at King’s College London from September 2007 to August 2010. Jeffrey Mankoff is a visiting fellow at both the Center for Strategic and Interna¬tional Studies in Washington DC and Columbia University in New York City, and the author of Russian foreign policy: the return of Great Power politics (2009). He was a 2010–11 Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow based in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs at the US Department of State. From 2008 to 2010, he was Associate Director of International Security Studies at Yale University and adjunct fellow for Russia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Previously, he was a John M. Olin National Security fellow at Harvard University, a Henry Chauncey Fellow in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and a fellow at Moscow State University. Suzanne C Nielsen is a Colonel in the US Army and an associate professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the US Military Academy at West Point. An intelligence officer by background, she has served in the United States, Germany, the Balkans, Korea and Iraq. Her research interests include change in military organizations, civil–military relations and national strategy. Her books include American national security, sixth edition (co-authored with Amos Jordan, William Taylor Jr and Michael Meese, 2009), and American civil–military relations: the soldier and the state in a new era (co-edited with Don Snider, 2009). Her most recent publication was An army transformed: the US Army’s post-Vietnam recovery and the dynamics of change in military organizations (2010). A distinguished graduate from the US Military Academy, she also holds a PhD in political science from Harvard University. Phil Orchard is a Lecturer in International Relations and Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Queensland and a Research Fellow with the Asia– Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. His primary research focuses on international efforts to protect civilians and forced migrants. He is currently completing a book titled Refugees and the construction of international cooperation and, with Alexander Betts, an edited volume on Implementation in world politics: how norms change practice. His work has been published in the Review of International Studies, Global Responsibility to Protect and Refugee Survey Quarterly. Benjamin Schreer is Deputy Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra. He is also managing editor of Security Challenges, Australia’s only peer-reviewed academic journal of defence studies. His current research interests are related to US defence policy in Asia–Pacific, NATO and Australian strategic policy. Previously, he worked at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin, the University of Konstanz, and the Aspen Institute in Berlin. Recent publications include ‘More flexible, less coherent: NATO after Lisbon’ (co-authored with Timo Noetzel, Australian Journal of International Affairs 66: 1, 2012) and ‘The Korean crises and Sino-American rivalry’ (with Brendan Taylor, Survival 53: 1, 2011). Geoffrey Sloan is a Lecturer in the School of Politics, Economics and International Relations, University of Reading. Prior to that, he was the Head of the Strategic Studies and International Affairs Department at Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth. He has also been a Defence Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. His research interests cover the fields of military doctrine, intelligence and geopol¬itics. His publications include: Geopolitics, geography and strategy (co-edited with Colin Gray, 1999); Geopolitics in United States strategic policy 1890–1987 (1988); and The geopolitics of Anglo–Irish relations in the twentieth century (1997). The last was short-listed for the Royal United Service Institute’s Westminster Medal for Military Literature in January 1998.  Trevor Taylor is Professorial Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute where he heads the Defence, Industries and Society Programme, and Professor Emeritus at Cranfield University where he still teaches.  He is also an Adjunct Faculty member of the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. He was formerly Cranfield’s Head of the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis at the Defence Academy, Shrivenham; Head of the International Security Programme at Chatham House; and Professor of International Relations at Staffordshire University. For six years he was an elected Council Member of the Defence Manufacturers’ Association and was in the first part of the 1990s elected Vice Chair and then Chair of the British International Studies Association. David Wedgwood Benn is a former member of the BBC World Service and writer on international affairs, with particular reference to Russia.  He broadcast on the BBC Russian Service at various times from the 1950s to the present.  He is the author of two books on the Russian media:  Persuasion and Soviet politics (1989) and From glasnost to freedom of speech: Russian openness and international relations (1992). http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182488 Fri, 09 Mar 2012 12:51:01 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182484 Africa and International Relations in the 21st century. Edited by Scarlett Cornelissen, Fantu Cheru and Timothy M. Shaw. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2012. 272pp. Index. £57.50. ISBN 978 0 23023 528 1. Promoting democracy abroad: policy and performance. By Peter Burnell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 2011. 396pp. £45.00. ISBN 978 1 41281 842 1. Conceptual politics of democracy promotion. Edited by Christopher Hobson and Milja Kurki. London: Routledge. 2011. 260pp. Index. £85.00. ISBN 978 0 41559 687 9. All the missing souls: a personal history of the war crimes tribunals. By David Scheffer. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2012. 533pp. Index. £24.95. ISBN 978 0 69114 015 5. Available as e-book. NATO: the power of partnerships. Edited by Håkan Edström, Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2011. 224pp. Index. £57.50. ISBN 978 0 23027 377 1. The shadow world: inside the global arms trade. By Andrew Feinstein. London: Hamish Hamilton. 2011. 672pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 0 24114 441 1. Available as e-book. Small arms, crime and conflict: global governance and the threat of armed violence. Edited by Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh. Abingdon: Routledge. 2012. 301pp. Index. Pb.: £80.00. ISBN 978 0 41557 755 7. The rise and fall of Al-Qaeda. By Fawaz A. Gerges. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. 214pp. Index. £15.99. ISBN 978 0 19979 065 4. The 9/11 wars. By Jason Burke. London: Allen Lane. 2011. 736pp. Index. £30.00. ISBN 978 1 84614 274 1. Available as e-book. Losing small wars: British military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. By Frank Ledwidge. London and New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2011. 304pp. £22.50. ISBN 978 0 30016 671 2. Available as e-book. Radicalism and political reform in the Islamic and western worlds. By Kai Hafez. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010. 253pp. Index. Pb.: £18.99. ISBN 978 0 52113 711 9.    The leaderless revolution: how ordinary people will take power and change politics in the 21st century. By Carne Ross. London: Simon & Schuster. 2011. 272pp. Index. £16.99. ISBN 978 1 84737 534 6. Available as e-book. Why it’s kicking off everywhere: the new global revolutions. By Paul Mason. London: Verso. 2012. 224pp. Pb.: £12.99. ISBN 978 1 84467 851 8. The price of civilization: economics and ethics after the fall. By Jeffrey Sachs. London: The Bodley Head. 2011. 326pp. Index. £20.00. ISBN 978 1 84792 092 8.Crises and opportunities: the shaping of modern finance. By Youssef Cassis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. 200pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 0 19960 086 1.World 3.0: global prosperity and how to achieve it. By Pankaj Ghemawat. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. 2011. 386pp. Index. £21.99. ISBN 978 1 42213 864 9.Private ratings, public regulations: credit rating agencies and global financial governance. By Andreas Kruck. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2011. 205pp. Index. £57.50. ISBN 978 0 23028 223 0.Food. By Jennifer Clapp. Cambridge: Polity. 2012. 218pp. Pb.: £12.99. ISBN 978 0 74564 936 8. Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West. By Robert Service. London: Macmillan. 2011. 424pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 0 23074 807 1. Available as e-book. The shock of the global: the 1970s in perspective. Edited by Niall Ferguson, Charles S. Maier, Erez Manela and Daniel J. Sargent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2010. 434pp. £22.95. ISBN 978 0 67404 904 8. Britain’s empire: resistance, repression and revolt. By Richard Gott. London: Verso. 2011. 564pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 1 84467 738 2.America, Hitler and the UN: how the Allies won World War II and forged a peace. By Dan Plesch. London: I. B. Tauris. 2011. 272pp. Index. £20.00. ISBN 978 1 84885 308 9. Allende’s Chile and the inter-American Cold War. By Tanya Harmer. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 2011. 400pp. Index. £38.95. ISBN 978 0 8078 349 5. Available as e-book. The transformation of Europe’s armed forces: from the Rhine to Afghanistan. By Anthony King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. 326pp. Index. £55.00. ISBN 978 0 52176 094 2. Available as e-book. The coalition and the constitution. By Vernon Bogdanor. Oxford: Hart. 2011. 162pp. Index. £20.00. ISBN 978 1 84946 158 0. Peace, reform and liberation: a history of liberal politics in Britain 1679–2011. By Robert Ingham and Duncan Brack. London: Biteback. 2011. 400pp. £30.00. ISBN 978 1 84954 043 8. Eastern partnership: a new opportunity for the neighbours? Edited By Elena Korosteleva. Abingdon: Routledge. 2012. 188pp. Index. £85.00. ISBN 978 0 41567 607 6. Vladimir Putin and Russian statecraft. By Allen C. Lynch. Washington DC: Potomac. 2011. 165pp. Index. £19.50. ISBN 978 1 59797 298 7. Available as e-book. Symbols and legitimacy in Soviet politics. By Graeme Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. 362pp. Index. £60.00. ISBN 978 1 10700 454 2. Available as e-book. Belarus: the last European dictatorship. By Andrew Wilson. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press. 2011. 304pp. Index. £20.00. ISBN 978 0 30013 435 3.Constructing grievance: ethnic nationalism in Russia’s republics. By Elise Giuliano. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2011. 256pp. £27.95. ISBN 978 0 80144 745 7. Insecure Gulf: the end of certainty and the transition to the post-oil era. By Kristian Coates Ulrichsen. London: Hurst. 2011. 288pp. Index. Pb.: £25.00. ISBN 978 1 84904 127 0. The new post-oil Arab Gulf: managing people and wealth. Edited by Nabil A. Sultan, David Weir and Zeinab Karake-Shalhoub. London: Saqi Books. 2011. 250pp. Index. Pb.: £25.00. ISBN 978 0 86356 490 1.  Salafism in Yemen: transnationalism and religious identity. By Laurent Bonnefoy. London: Hurst. 2012. 366pp. Pb.: £25.00. ISBN 978 1 84904 131 7. Citizen of Zimbabwe: conversations with Morgan Tsvangirai. By Stephen Chan. Harare: Weaver Press. 2010. 116pp. Pb.: £18.95. ISBN 978 1 77922 105 6. Southern Africa: old treacheries and new deceits. By Stephen Chan. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2011. 304pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 0 30015 405 4. Available as e-book. UN peacekeeping in Africa: from the Suez crisis to the Sudan conflicts. By Adekeye Adebajo. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 2011. 240pp. Index. Pb.: £19.50. ISBN 978 1 58826 782 5. Obasanjo, Nigeria and the world. By John Iliffe. Woodbridge: James Currey. 2011. 326pp. Index. £45.00. ISBN 978 1 84701 027 8. Warfare in independent Africa. By William Reno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. 271pp. Index. £55.00. ISBN 978 0 52185 045 2. Available as e-book. An enemy we created: the myth of the Taliban/Al Qaeda merger in Afghanistan, 1970–2010. By Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn. London: Hurst. 538pp. Index. £30.00. ISBN 978 1 84904 154 6. The wars of Afghanistan: Messianic terrorism, tribal conflicts, and the failures of Great Powers. By Peter Tomsen. New York: Public Affairs. 2011. 714pp. Index. £25.00. ISBN 978 1 58648 763 8. Available as e-book. In the shadow of shari’ah: Islam, Islamic law and democracy in Pakistan. By Matthew J. Nelson. London: Hurst. 2011. 337pp. £65.00. ISBN 978 1 85065 926 6. Beyond North Korea: future challenges to South Korea’s security. Edited by Byung Kwan Kim, Gi-Wook Shin and David Straub. Stanford, CA: The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. 2011. 281pp. Pb.: £19.99. ISBN 978 1 93136 819 3. Korea 2010: politics, economy and society. Edited by Rüdiger Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick Köllner and Susan Pares. Leiden: Brill. 2010. 309pp. £49.00. ISBN 978 9 00418 535 7. Korea’s foreign policy dilemmas: defining state security and the goal of national unification. By Sung-Hack Kang. Folkestone: Global Oriental. 2011. 425pp. £78.00. ISBN 978 1 90687 6 35 7.Southeast Asia and the rise of China: the search for security. By Ian Storey. London and New York: Routledge. 2011. 362pp. Index. £85.00. ISBN 978 0 41532 621 6. Worse than a monolith: alliance politics and problems of coercive diplomacy in Asia. By Thomas J. Christensen. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2011. 318pp. Index. Pb.: £16.95. ISBN 978 0 69114 261 6. Available as e-book. Liberty’s surest guardian: American nation-building from the founders to Obama. By Jeremi Suri. London & New York: Simon and Schuster. 2011. 358pp. Index. $28.00. ISBN 978 1 43911 912 9. Available as e-book. The decline and fall of the American republic. By Bruce Ackerman. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. 2010. 264pp. Index. £19.95. ISBN 978 0 67405 703 6. Available as e-book. Leftist governments in Latin America: successes and shortcomings. Edited by Kurt Weyland, Raúl L. Madrid and Wendy Hunter. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010. 216pp. Index. Pb.: £18.99. ISBN 978 0 52113 033 2.The resurgence of the Latin American left. Edited by Steven Levitsky and Kenneth M. Roberts. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2011. 480pp. Index.Pb.: £18.00. ISBN 978 1 42140 110 2.The triumph of politics: the return of the left in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. By George Philip and Francisco Panizza. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. 2011. 224pp. Index. Pb.: £15.99. ISBN 978 0 74564 749 4.Right-wing politics in the new Latin America: reaction and revolt. Edited by Francisco Dominguez, Geraldine Lievesley and Steve Ludlam. London: Zed Books. 2011. 270pp. Index. Pb.: £19.99. ISBN 978 1 84813 811 7. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182484 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:02:27 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182483 Orlando Figes’s book The Crimean War: a history, based on English, Russian, French and Turkish sources, throws a new light on the Crimean War in a number of ways. It shows that the conflict was far from being a small war, but a landmark event. It was the only example of a war between Britain and Russia - and it led to enormous casualties. It also represented a stage in medical history, since most of the casualties were caused by disease. In Britain, it marked a new advance in the power of the press, which did much to fuel anti-Russian sentiment. The war was also fuelled, on both sides, by religious and nationalist sentiment - but its most important cause related to the fate of the Ottoman Empire, then in decline, and fears that its collapse could result in a dangerous power vacuum. The war still has a significance for the present day because the collapse of communism has failed to resolve the antagonism between Russia and the West. Here, the book throws an important light on the development of British and western attitudes towards Russia, many of which were shaped in the nineteenth century. The book deserves attention, both here and in Russia. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182483 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:01:06 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182482 The Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), now ten years old, has been widely accepted at the international level. As the books under review demonstrate, debates around its legitimacy are over. Instead, we see a developing second generation of literature focusing on how the R2P needs to be understood more concretely in both academic and policy terms, as well as how it affects the linked issues of humanitarian intervention and state-building. Within this literature, we see new and important questions emerging. These include how and when we should intervene and whether we can be successful at it; how we can assist states to ensure they fulfill their own responsibilities towards their populations; and where international authority lies. Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are hard ones. Implementation, and how it reflects embedded culture at the international level, may be as hard - if not harder - as introducing the doctrine originally. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182482 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:58:44 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182481 Fifty-five years after it was first published, Samuel Huntington’s The soldier and the state remains an essential starting point for serious discussions of American civil–military relations. In part this is due to the boldness and ambition of the author. Huntington brought theory to a research area that had suffered from too little theorizing and then went on to formulate concepts that scholars and practitioners of civil–military relations still find useful. These include: the conceptualization of the military as a profession; the articulation of the two central forces shaping the nature of military institutions as the functional and the societal imperatives; and the formulation of subjective and objective control as the two main patterns of civilian control. This review article briefly revisits these concepts and argues that they retain utility in illuminating important issues in American civil–military relations today. It also argues, however, that Huntington’s contributions were productive but not perfect. Some of his specific definitions, such as the content of military expertise, are debatable. Some of his central concerns, such as whether the United States could sustain a strong military over an extended period of time, are no longer central today. Finally, in some places the literature has moved beyond what Huntington offered. The best example is the ongoing debate over how the country’s political leaders and its most senior military officers should interact. It is precisely on this point that Huntington’s objective control is the weakest. While The soldier and the state certainly does not deserve uncritical acceptance, it does continue to merit a fair hearing. Current discussions of American civil–military relations are likely to be more reasonable and productive if Huntington is given a voice. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182481 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:56:45 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182480 The second Nuclear Security Summit on 26-27 March 2012 in Seoul provides an important opportunity to gauge international consensus on the threat posed by nuclear terrorism, and to evaluate progress in the development of multilateral cooperative efforts to prevent it. However, the ‘nuclear security’ agenda has long been complicated by the complexity of the issues it covers and diverging perceptions of the risks and threats in this area. Further complications involve the politics that have constrained the development of formal cooperative approaches and the patchwork nature of the existing multilateral policy architecture. While the Summit is unlikely to go very far in mitigating these complications, it will nonetheless provide impetus to multilateral efforts to strengthen the international regulative framework in this area and, in the process, to develop the norm of nuclear security. Beyond Seoul several priorities stand out. Nuclear safety and nuclear security need to be approached in a more balanced way by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it must also be allowed to adopt a more joined-up, and less stove-piped, approach to nuclear governance across the safeguards, safety and security fields. Developing countries that are concerned by growing demands for strengthened nuclear security arrangements need greater reassurance from those proposing them that these will not undermine their rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue civil applications of nuclear energy. Greater progress also needs to be made in universalizing the key nuclear security conventions and their amendments, and attention should be given to how momentum and high-level political buy-in to the nuclear security agenda can be maintained in the future both as part of, and beyond, the Nuclear Security Summit process. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182480 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:51:49 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182479 Pushed by the realities of domestic politics to proceed with plans to deploy a US missile defense (MD) capability in Europe, the Obama administration has made cooperation on MD a key element in its strategy for engaging both NATO and Russia. While addressing many of the shortcomings of the Bush administration’s approach, the current US vision underestimates both the technical and political obstacles ahead. European states and NATO see MD as a lower priority, particularly in the aftermath of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Libya, and are unlikely to commit the resources necessary to making a shared NATO MD architecture a reality. Russia’s cautious support for MD cooperation is based on a desire to create a more inclusive model of European security, an idea that has limited support in Washington and the European capitals. By trying to do too much with MD cooperation, the Obama administration risks the whole effort collapsing. Given domestic constraints, the administration cannot pull back from its European MD plans, but should nudge them off centre stage in its conversations on security with both NATO allies and the Russians. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182479 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:47:03 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182478 NATO's recent operation in Libya has been described by some commentators as reflecting a new burden-sharing model, with the US playing a more supportive role and European allies stepping up to provide the bulk of the air strikes. The US administration of President Barack Obama seemed to share this view and has made clear that post-Libya it continues to expect its allies to assume greater responsibility within the alliance. Moreover, unlike previously, changes within the US and the international system are likely to make America less willing and able to provide for the same degree of leadership in NATO that the alliance has been used to. However, this article finds that Operation Unified Protector in Libya has only limited utility as a benchmark for a sustainable burden-sharing model for the alliance. As a result, an ever more fragmented NATO is still in search for a new transatlantic consensus on how to distribute the burdens more equally among its members. While no new generic model is easily available, a move towards a ‘post-American’ alliance may provide the basis for a more equitable burden-sharing arrangement, one in which European allies assume a greater leadership role and are prepared to invest more in niche military capabilities. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182478 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:44:08 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182477 NATO and its members are beginning to gear themselves up for the summit in Chicago in May 2012. Such summits are always important, especially when they are held in the United States during an election year and in the aftermath of the French presidential elections. This article addresses the issues that are likely to be most prominent at the Chicago summit - NATO’s wars; enlargement and Russia; burden-sharing; and divergent agendas - before drawing some general conclusions. The outstanding question is whether these issues will lead to division within NATO and hence its possible demise - or will they be finessed?VideoRobin Niblett discusses NATO's future. Watch. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182477 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:40:40 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182476 Although the law has always been a major reference point in the conduct of war, little scholarly attention has focused on the transformative effect of recent legal challenges, judicial rulings and inquiries on the armed forces themselves, notably the 2011 Gage Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa and the Philip Inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre helicopter disaster. Despite this, the impact has been significant in the ways it has transformed the governance regime of British armed forces and the professional autonomy of the military. This article conceptualizes the impact of law on the armed forces as ‘juridification’. In applying this concept, this article analyses the implications of this for the culture, conduct and organization of the British armed forces. It argues that juridification closes a civil–military relations gap between society on the one hand and the armed forces on the other. As important, juridification also brings with it permanent instability because of the inevitable conflicts that arise from the replacement of an old order based on authority, to a new military system based on rights. Thus the effects of juridification are not just a liminal moment - a transitory dislocation from established structures and the reversal of existing hierarchies - followed by the creation of a permanent new order. Rather, juridification has initiated an era of instability that is characterized by the absence of any permanent settlement of authority and rights in the governance of the armed forces. This has significant implications for the armed forces and their professional autonomy and the social, political and legal context in which armed forces have to operate. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182476 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:38:26 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182475 Drawing primarily on the experience of the UK since 2001, this article examines the increasing prevalence of risk as an organizing concept for western defence and security planning and its implications for civil–military relations and strategymaking. It argues that there may be tensions between such approaches and the principles of good strategy-making, which aim to link means and resources to ends in a coherent manner. Not only does risk potentially blur the relationship between means and ends in the strategy-making process, it also exposes it to contestation, with multiple interpretations of what the risks actually are and the strategic priority (and commitment) which should be attached to them. The article examines these tensions at three levels of risk contestation for British defence: institutions, operations and military–society relations. In the case of the UK, it contends that the logic of risk has not been able to provide the same national motivation and sense of strategic purpose as the logic of threat. In this context, calls for a reinvigoration of traditional strategy-making or a renewed conception of national interest may be missing a more fundamental dissonance between defence policy, civil–military relations and the wider security context. More widely, the strategic ennui that some western states have been accused of may not simply be a product of somehow falling out of the habit of strategy-making or an absence of ‘political will’. Instead, it may reflect deeper social and geostrategic trends which constrain and complicate the use of military force and obscure its utility in the public imagination. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182475 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:35:53 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182474 Military doctrine is one of the conceptual components of war. Its raison d’être is that of a force multiplier. It enables a smaller force to take on and defeat a larger force in battle. This article’s departure point is the aphorism of Sir Julian Corbett, who described doctrine as ‘the soul of warfare’. The second dimension to creating a force multiplier effect is forging doctrine with an appropriate command philosophy. The challenge for commanders is how, in unique circumstances, to formulate, disseminate and apply an appropriate doctrine and combine it with a relevant command philosophy. This can only be achieved by policy-makers and senior commanders successfully answering the Clausewitzian question: what kind of conflict are they involved in? Once an answer has been provided, a synthesis of these two factors can be developed and applied. Doctrine has implications for all three levels of war. Tactically, doctrine does two things: first, it helps to create a tempo of operations; second, it develops a transitory quality that will produce operational effect, and ultimately facilitate the pursuit of strategic objectives. Its function is to provide both training and instruction. At the operational level instruction and understanding are critical functions. Third, at the strategic level it provides understanding and direction. Using John Gooch’s six components of doctrine, it will be argued that there is a lacunae in the theory of doctrine as these components can manifest themselves in very different ways at the three levels of war. They can in turn affect the transitory quality of tactical operations. Doctrine is pivotal to success in war. Without doctrine and the appropriate command philosophy military operations cannot be successfully concluded against an active and determined foe. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182474 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:33:21 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182473 Political and media attention in the UK is devoted to three interrelated aspects of defence: policy, the management of defence resources and military operations. This article argues that the 1998 Strategic Defence Review placed excessive reliance on anticipated improvements in the management of defence resources to render Labour's defence policies affordable. The field of attempted defence management improvements is surveyed and it is concluded that no final answers were generated on the key issues of the division of tasks among uniformed personnel, civil servants and the private sector, or on whether defence should be run largely on a capability basis or on single service lines. Given the demonstrated similarity between the government’s concepts of the UK’s role in the world in the Strategic Defence Review (1998) and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) (2010), there is a clear danger that the SDSR also relies too much on efficiency savings. By reference to the inherent complications of defence management and to three strands of management thought (complexity management, wicked problems and principal–agent theory), the article argues that some inefficiency will always be present. It suggests that the Clausewitzian concept of friction, accepted as pertinent to the area of military operations, might also be applied to efforts to generate military capability. It concludes that defence reviews should not be based on assumptions about efficiency savings and that students of international security and defence need to pay attention to both the volume of resources going into defence and the mechanisms by which they are managed. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182473 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:30:11 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182472 One of the first steps taken by the newly elected Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government was to initiate a review of the national strategy of the United Kingdom. The review culminated in October 2010 in the publication of a revised National Security Strategy as well as a new Strategic Defence and Security Review. With the benefit of over twelve months of hindsight, this article is concerned with the formulation, the implementation and the longer-term implications of the 2010 strategy review. The first part of the article assesses the review as a national strategic plan. What were the strategic challenges addressed by the review, what decisions, judgements and misjudgements were made, and what was overlooked? In part two the authors turn to operational matters: how far was the UK’s postreview strategic experience (i.e. in Afghanistan and Libya) consistent with the decisions and promises made in 2010? Part three discusses the review as a public statement of national policy, gauging the impression it has made on the national strategic narrative since 2010: how was the review received, what reputation has it acquired and what was/is the quality of the debate surrounding it? Finally, in part four the article asks what the 2010 review and its aftermath reveal of the formulation and implementation of national strategy in the United Kingdom. Was the 2010 review simply the latest in a long series of attempts by government to find a convincing and durable compromise between security challenges and national resources? Or was the review the beginning of something different altogether? Could UK national strategy henceforth be more of an adaptive, iterative process than a compressed period of analysis and reflection followed by the publication of a policy statement with an inevitably brief shelf-life? http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182472 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:24:28 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182469 http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/182469 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:32:25 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/181611 http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/ia/archive/view/181611 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:05:38 +0100 Chatham House - International Affairs