scholarly journals An overview of domestic aspects in US climate policy

2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (spe) ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Solange Reis Ferreira ◽  
Kelly Ferreira ◽  
Tullo Vigevani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
International Climate Policy ◽  
International Climate

The article shows how domestic aspects influence the United States national and international climate policy. To accomplish the task, the authors analyzes the discussions when Bill Clinton was ruling the country, a time during which global discussions were forwarded. The paper recalls the debate in the Bush administration and the growing polarization since Barack Obama took office.

scholarly journals Presidential Policy Guidance: Procedures for Approving Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets Located Outside The United States and Areas of Active Hostilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1209-1225
Author(s):  
Rita Siemion
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Policy Guidance ◽  
Presidential Policy

With the rise of terrorist threats emanating from outside the territory of the United States and simultaneous advancements in armed drone technology, the United States began a rapidly escalating lethal drone program in the years after 9/11. While the first U.S. drone strike occurred in Yemen in 2002 during the George W. Bush administration, President Barack Obama dramatically increased the number of drone strikes during his first term.

scholarly journals Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Vanhala ◽  
Cecilie Hestbaek
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Frame Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Climate Policy ◽  
Loss And Damage ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Elite Interviews

How does an idea emerge and gain traction in the international arena when its underpinning principles are contested by powerful players? The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) puzzled observers, because key state parties, such as the United States, had historically opposed the policy. This article examines the roles of frame contestation and ambiguity in accounting for the evolution and institutionalization of the “loss and damage” norm within the UNFCCC. The article applies frame analysis to the data from coverage of the negotiations and elite interviews. It reveals that two competing framings, one focused on liability and compensation and the other on risk and insurance, evolved into a single, overarching master frame. This more ambiguous framing allowed parties to attach different meanings to the policy that led to the resolution of differences among the parties and the embedding of the idea of loss and damage in international climate policy.

The Obama Administration, International Law, and Executive Minimalism

2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 646-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley S. Deeks
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Obama Administration ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Face

When President Barack Obama came into office in 2009 in the midst of serious, ongoing terrorist threats to the United States, he confronted important choices about how to approach the bodies of international law that regulate the resort to force and the conduct of armed conflict. By many accounts, the Bush administration had taken a maximalist approach to those bodies of international law, staking out broad substantive claims about what international law permitted in resorting to force and in detaining and treating members of Al Qaeda, and asserting those claims publicly and frequently.The Obama administration has repeatedly taken a notably different tack, employing an approach that we might characterize as “executive minimalism.” That is, the Obama administration has signaled to other states its interest in self-constraint by making fewer bold substantive and rhetorical claims related to the jus ad bellum and jus in bello. It has pursued this objective partly by establishing various policies that authorize a narrower scope of action than what some believe international law permits. In particular contexts, it has also been more hesitant as a rhetorical matter to assert precise legal claims about what international law allows or where international law's limits lie. Accordingly, the Obama administration has sometimes taken action in the face of two (or more) possible legal theories without articulating its specific rationale.

Liberal Internationalism from George W. Bush to Barack Obama

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Global War

This chapter examines the United States' liberal democratic internationalism from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. It first considers the Bush administration's self-ordained mission to win the “global war on terrorism” by reconstructing the Middle East and Afghanistan before discussing the two time-honored notions of Wilsonianism espoused by Democrats to make sure that the United States remained the leader in world affairs: multilateralism and nation-building. It then explores the liberal agenda under Obama, whose first months in office seemed to herald a break with neoliberalism, and his apparent disinterest in the rhetoric of democratic peace theory, along with his discourse on the subject of an American “responsibility to protect” through the promotion of democracy abroad. The chapter also analyzes the Obama administration's economic globalization and concludes by comparing the liberal internationalism of Bush and Obama.

Comparative analysis of the trade policy of Barack Obama and Donald Trump

2020 ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
V. Iordanova ◽  
A. Ananev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
World Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Entire World

The authors of this scientific article conducted a comparative analysis of the trade policy of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The article states that the tightening of trade policy by the current President is counterproductive and has a serious impact not only on the economic development of the United States, but also on the entire world economy as a whole.

The Clinton Administration and Africa: A View from Gaborone, Botswana

1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Larry A. Swatuk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
Clinton Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Crisis Response ◽  
Economic Policies ◽  
Material World ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
The World

With fanfare befitting the arrival of a god of the Western material world, U.S. President Bill Clinton toured Southern Africa imparting “words of wisdom” along the way. His aim, we were told, was to see that the United States becomes Africa’s “true partner.” The reason being, according to Clinton, “[a]s Africa grows strong, America grows stronger ... Yes, Africa needs the world, but more than ever it is equally true that the world needs Africa.” To this end, the United States would pursue a mix of political and economic policies that included the African Crisis Response Initiative and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, both designed to foster “stability” and “prosperity” on the continent. Lofty goals, to be sure, but ends whose means are badly in need of interrogation. This article does just that: To wit, does Clinton, on behalf of U.S. policymakers, mean what he says? If so, in naming “peace” and “prosperity,” can he make them? Put differently, does the Clinton administration have the power to introduce order where there was chaos? Or will it only compound existing problems and visit new ones upon those who had few to begin with?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document