Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Marinko Bobić
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Similar Question ◽  
Asymmetric Conflict ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Minor Powers

Looking at examples of interstate asymmetric conflict, this chapter argues that regimes of minor powers fighting major powers might seem suicidal. This book was not the first piece of research to have been puzzled by such behaviour. However, in this introduction, the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies are highlighted. The aim of this book is to attempt to address some of these weaknesses by asking a similar question on more recent cases, namely, why or under what conditions have minor powers attempted to resist or challenge others they know to be significantly more powerful than they by force of arms in the post-Cold War period? That said, this chapter argues that problem-driven pragmatism allows us to take insights from multiple theories. Finally, this chapter discusses the data, findings, relevance, scope and the main audience that might be interested in reading this book. At the end of the chapter, the organisation of the book is provided.

Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinko Bobić
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Asymmetric Conflict ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Regime Stability ◽  
Minor Powers

Major powers have immense resources at their disposal, while minor powers are assumed to avoid wars and power politics due to structural and material constraints. This provokes the question why do some minor powers nonetheless decide to militarily engage their vastly stronger opponents, particularly major powers? Inspired by several theoretical insights, this book proposes a more complex framework of minor powers in interstate asymmetric conflict. It analyses five conditions highlighted by previous studies: domestic crisis, foreign support, window of opportunity, anomalous beliefs, and regime stability. The theoretical framework works well with a mixed-methods approach, a medium-N research design (Qualitative Comparative Analysis), and three case studies: Iraq (1990), Moldova (1992), and Serbia (1999). The book finds that by looking through the lenses of multiple theories, one can observe a more nuanced relationship how different conditions interact in impacting minor powers’ decisions. Ultimately, minor powers militarily engage major powers when facing a more important domestic crisis and when they also believe that they have a window of opportunity or support from another major power in order to constrain major powers’ capability and resolve. Looking at the current conflict in Syria, there are important policy implications given the observation that minor powers do and will continue to challenge major powers in the future.

scholarly journals State Building Interventions in Post Cold War Period: A Critique of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and ‘Humanitarianism’

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-103
Author(s):  
Shahida Aman
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Human Security ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
State Building ◽  
State System ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Moral Ground ◽  
Major Powers

This paper explores the concepts of humanitarianism and responsibility to protect, which have most influentially guided state building interventions in the post Cold War period. With more than fifty states intervened in the guise of ‘responsibility to protect,’ this paper attempts to analyze why interventionist state building has developed as a major concern for the international state system. It further delves into the impacts of such interventionist rationale on the nature and functioning of the international state system. This paper argues the rise of sovereignty as responsibility and humanitarianism challenged the inviolable sovereignty of states by making it conditional on the government’s exercise of monopoly over violence within its territory and extension of protection to its citizens against war, crimes, violence and bloodshed. The paper further argues that the selective application of the principle of human security and non-intervention by major powers in crucial conflicts makes the moral ground of this principle very dubious. It also highlights that in post 9/11 period, the mixed successes of these concepts in practice, resulting form a large number of political, institutional and operational challenges, underlie the need to use non-military diplomatic, political and economic means for conflict resolution.

Scelle, Schmitt, Kelsen, Lauterpacht, and the Continuing Relevance of their Inter-War Debate on Normativity

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Global History ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Major Significance ◽  
The Difference

The inter-war period of European and global history (1919–1939) fascinates by virtue of its uniqueness, the intensity of its developments, and the strategies of crisis managements it has witnessed within the League of Nations framework and beyond. The uniqueness of this period was mainly due to the fact that the identity and interests of major powers were split to a greater extent than held in common. In this time of major strategic and ideological divisions the uniform and consistent operation of positive international law as a major instrument for the preservation of peace was obviously challenged. The legal and political discourse of four major scholars of international law – Scelle, Schmitt, Kelsen and Lauterpacht – had to analytically tackle this challenge to the very viability of international law, the essence of its normativity, and its ability to make the difference in international affairs. As this contribution demonstrates, the complexity of this issue was not always given the similarly required complex attention, and grave implications followed both in legal and political terms. Viability of law in times of division is what requires that continuous attention is paid to the inter-war jurisprudential debate. The issues the four inter-war authors have focused upon retain their major significance in terms of the viability of international law in the post-Cold War international system. Three modern case-studies consequently illustrate the continuing relevance of the inter-war debate.

Cambodia’s hegemonic-party system: How and why the CPP became dominant

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sorpong Peou
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Party System ◽  
Relative Power ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
People's Party ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Historical Factors ◽  
And Control ◽  
Shed Light

This article seeks to shed light on how and why the Cambodian People’s Party (the CPP) emerged and became dominant in the multi-party system formally introduced to Cambodia when the United Nations intervened in the early 1990s. Historical factors, relative power, leadership, and tactics matter a great deal. Hun Sen has been in power for more than 30 years and his effectiveness can be attributed to three tactics: coercion, co-option, and control. The post-Cold War environment also made it possible for the CPP government to use these tactics successfully, as major powers preferred to work with Hun Sen or did little to undermine him.

scholarly journals The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: a critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Haacke
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
Security Challenge ◽  
Middle Powers

Abstract In the context of the complex unipolar post-Cold War period that has witnessed China’s reemergence as an economic and military power, small and middle powers are increasingly considered to be hedging. This analysis is especially prevalent in relation to Southeast Asian countries, many of which face security challenges posed by China. However, as the literature on hedging has expanded, the concept’s analytical value is no longer obvious. Different understandings of hedging compete within the literature, and there are many criteria by which hedging is empirically ascertained, leading to confusion even over the basic question of which countries are hedging. In response, this article presents a modified conceptual and methodological framework that clearly delineates hedging from other security strategies and identifies key criteria to evaluate whether smaller powers are hedging when confronting a serious security challenge by one of the major powers. This framework is then applied to Malaysia and Singapore.

Vietnam's Post-Cold War Diplomacy and the U.S. Response

Asian Survey ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 832-847
Author(s):  
Allan E. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The U.S

China's Post-Cold War African Policy

Asian Survey ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 867-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Payne ◽  
Cassandra R. Veney
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Post Cold War
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document