Counter-proliferating the rogue states
President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” and accused them of seeking to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological). Further, Under Secretary of State John Bolton said that Cuba, Libya and Syria could be grouped with these as “rogue states”. In doing so, the mere alleged acquisition, without any stated intent, of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) weapons and delivery systems was designated a threat to local, regional and global stability and security, given the terror and fear they invoked. The ensuing policy agenda and process of arms control (non-proliferation) and disarmament (counter-proliferation) was based on the vulnerability management of these capabilities. This was premised on the refusal of the labelled rogue states to accept the international norms of recognized arms control practices of diplomacy, international negotiation, compliance, regulation, transparency and verification. It is upon this assumption that the crux of the argument exists of a clear case for pre-emptive or preventive armed force against rogue states. On this basis, this article will, through its analysis, settle the outstanding question of whether war against rogue states can be considered a just war, based upon historical precedents. The first of such wars against a rogue state is that waged against Iraq (2003), where the alleged Iraqi WMD capability has not yet been shown to exist. Approaching this mandates rethinking basic notions and mannerisms of international defense and security. America cannot act as world policeman indefinitely. This projects the need for an alternative to unilateral counter-proliferation by way of pre-emptive military action; namely a “Hague Style Convention on Proliferation” to reintroduce the international community of nations to a self-regulatory multi-polar approach towards arms control and disarmament. Given the options, it is clear that there is a consensus to the ends. While the means to the end might be arguable, there is Defense & Security Analysis Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 343–354, December 2004
Finally at Certain Crossroads? Three Critical Challenges to NATO
Abstract This article presents an analysis of the kinds of challenges facing NATO by conceptualizing them as crossroads that will require the organization to pause long enough to redefine the current debate about enlargement and its relations with partners, enemies, and foes alike.
Protection of the Marine Environment: The International and National Regulation of Deep Seabed Mining Activities
This chapter provides an overview of the international and national regulatory framework pertaining to deep seabed mining activities. It begins by discussing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the backdrop for all marine activities – be they national or international – and examines the obligations of states to protect the marine environment from the harmful effects arising from deep seabed mining. Next, the chapter examines the international regime for deep seabed mining (i.e. “activities in the Area”), explaining the “common heritage of mankind” status of the Area (i.e. the international seabed); the functions of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the international organization established to govern deep seabed mining in the Area; and the concept of state sponsorship of non-state entities (i.e. private actors) for deep seabed mining in the Area. The chapter follows with a discussion of the development of national legislation to regulate deep seabed mining, examining efforts in the Pacific region where many prospective deep-sea mining sites are located. This includes a look at the legislative regimes of several Pacific Island nations, namely, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and the Cook Islands, for whom deep seabed mining may soon become a reality – as well as New Zealand and Japan, countries with comparatively developed rule of law and legislative regimes that have undertaken or considered deep seabed mining in their national waters. Overall, the chapter critically describes and evaluates the current regulatory status in the international and national seabed areas and highlights some salient gaps that require urgent attention in order to ensure marine environmental protection and mitigate impacts on humans.