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
International Law and the Use of Force
The use of military force is only lawful if and to the extent that it comes under an accepted exception to the general rule of prohibition outlined in the Charter of the United Nations (‘UN Charter’).1 This paper examines whether, in the absence of any explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council (‘UNSC’), international law allows a state to use military force to compel another into meeting its obligations. In particular, it considers the extension of the traditional, customary law doctrine of self-defence to include pre-emptive and anticipatory attacks. It will be argued that although future extension of the doctrine is inevitable, any broadening of the relevant international law principles must be approached prudently and with the greatest respect for the traditional strict approach.
La participacion de los stakeholders en las iniciativas de branding del hospital en las redes sociales: una propuesta de modelo para construir marcas colectivas
Introduction : All health organizations face many managerial and economic challenges such as the consolidation of private and international hospitals, the increasingly interest of society for health education issues or the development of telemedicine. In this framework, many organizations prioritize social media as the main corporate communication tool for building a reputed brand in a collective way along with stakeholders. Objectives : This paper aims to identify a communication model allowing hospitals to efficiently apply branding initiatives on social media in order to build a brand in a collective way with stakeholders. Methodology : We carried out a literature review about corporate communication, health communication, branding and social media; and, then, we proposed the PET Model for Branding Hospitals on Social Media. Results and Conclusion : We conclude that hospitals should create a multidisciplinar corporate communication department, implement management initiatives for allowing health professionals have more time for using social media and integrate health education and patient’s empowerment in every communication initiative.