Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: If politics makes strange bedfellows, then few can be more curious than the evolution of the doctrines of preventative and preemptive intervention. For the cast of characters involved, I will argue, extends from United Nations Secretary Generals Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan to former Australian and Algerian Foreign Ministers Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun respectively, all who promoted the doctrine of preventative intervention. Academics from European, Canadian and American universities were linked with policy pundits from New York and Washington in advocating this doctrine. Yet, ultimately, I argue that what had begun as a doctrine with very specific (and distinct) motives contained a thread that wound its way to George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, albeit it in the amended form of the doctrine of preemptive intervention, as American troops engaged Iraqi forces in warfare, purportedly motivated by both (simultaneously) the existence of a clear and present danger and the impulse to spread democratic values.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In September 2002, the Bush Administration outlined its controversial military doctrine of preemption and preventative war. As might be expected, this pronouncement was met with considerable condemnation. The basis of the criticism varies; some suggesting that the doctrine violates international law and agreed upon standards (norms) for the appropriate use of force while others arguing that its adoption will set an extremely dangerous and incendiary precedent. The theoretical and practical merits of these various objections notwithstanding, one can anticipate that other countries, particularly when confronted by similar threat scenarios, may in fact empathize with the Bush administration. In fact, a military doctrine predicated on preemption might offer new possibilities and significant opportunities to other regional powers in how they confront a host of risks and threats to their states' national security. With the above considerations in mind, my paper seeks to address the question of the impending, albeit nascent, international diffusion of this potentially revolutionary military doctrine. Based on in-depth comparative analysis, I intend to analyze the security policymaking process in Russia, the People's Republic of China and India as it relates the adoption of this new military doctrine. Certainly, none of the three compare with the current overwhelming military power and high-tech assets of the United States. Nonetheless, the three are regional leaders who face similar security threats and possess advantages relative to most of it main adversaries. To what extent have these states incorporated the doctrine of preemption and preventative war into their overall national security strategy? In order to develop some tentative theoretical generalizations as well as practical implications, the analysis will address at least three broad questions. First, how have political and military leaders in these countries reacted publicly to the Bush Administration's 2002 National Security Strategy? Do they cite the United States as a justification for a shift in doctrine? Second, although it may be too soon to determine, have these countries included these ideas in their official national security strategies? Related to this, have they begun to institutionalize these ideas in the military force posture, operational tactics and/or procurement policies? Finally, is adoption (or non-adoption) of the doctrine of preemption a reasonable strategic adjustment in the face of new threat perceptions or a function of public opinion, military institutional interests, capabilities and/or other domestic constraints (constitutional restrictions, domestic culture, historical memory, etc.)? Certainly, defense planning requires time and takes place largely in secrecy. Nonetheless, the broad objective of this paper is to evaluate the possibility that the Bush Administration has set a precarious precedent in that others may now feel free to pursue similar doctrines. Essentially, is the doctrine of preemption in the early phases of diffusion throughout the international system?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In his study focusing on American foreign policy doctrines, Cecil V. Crabb notes that there are three essential components to these policy pronouncements: a basis in international law, the inclusion of religious and metaphysical imagery and elements, as well as an appeal to specific ideals that are representative of the United States. This study seeks to extend Crabb's framework to the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, often referred to as the Bush Doctrine. Specifically, this paper explores the extent to which elements stemming from Crabb's three criteria are evident in the Bush Doctrine. Additionally, this analysis will examine the implications pertaining to international law, the concepts of pre-emption and self-defense, as well as just-war theory, that arise out of the framework presented in the Bush Doctrine. The use of Crabb's framework will allow for an examination of the extent to which the Bush Doctrine either mirrors previous presidential doctrines or, perhaps, indicates a marked change in the direction and nature of American foreign policy.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper offers a substantive discussion of the multiple levels of analysis involved in macro-sociological explanation. In so doing it also criticizes the renewed emphasis on individualistic explanation found in much contemporary sociological theory. For illustrative material it returns to intellectual uses of Weber's “Protestant Ethic thesis,” showing how an artificial version has been employed as a kind of proof text for an alleged scientific necessity of individualist explanation. The core of the article reconstructs the discussion of Protestantism and capitalism in an explicitly multi-level way, differentiating possible individual-level, social-organizational, and institutional linkages. We show that the causal processes involved are independent ones, with the more structural forms neither plausibly reducible to individual-level ones nor realistically attainable via individual-level reasoning. We argue more generally that methodological and theoretical individualisms typically conflate issues of explanation with issues having to do with the ontological microfoundations of social life. This persistent intellectual conflation seems to have cultural sources, specifically the extraordinary cognitive and normative standing of individualism in contemporary folk and policy models of society.