Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper looks at how norms of appropriate behavior in warfare are determined. The principle question driving the paper is why some modes of warfare are acceptable and why others are deemed inappropriate. In particular it looks at some of the normative restrictions on warfare and how these have been interpreted. The paper argues that global hegemons are able to establish codes of conduct for the practice of war that legitimize certain actions and means of fighting and delegitimize others. These norms can be interpreted to reinforce the specific strengths of the hegemon at the expense of potential challengers. The paper will look at how these codes of conduct are determined and why some specific rules of war are generally accepted in the international community and others are not by focusing on recent practices by the United States. The discussion will focus on both the actions and language employed by the United States and will attempt to relate these to the issues relating to technological advantages emjoyed by the United States. Some of this will be specifically relevant to the current 'Global War on Terror', but the focus of the paper seeks to move beyond this to determine how great powers and significant global actors have been able to decide what is the 'right way' and what is the 'wrong way' to fight a war.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Just War Theory, jus ad bellum, is a western social construct. In other words, jus ad bellum is a collection of interrelated, western social norms. Our notions of when and under what conditions war, as a political activity, is morally permissible have been shaped first, by our Christian heritage and then, later, by liberal democratic political beliefs as these supplanted Christianity in the West. The implication, of course, is obvious: there is no universally accepted jus ad bellum; there is just war. But socially constructed does not mean politically or strategically irrelevant--quite the contrary. Rather ironically, jus ad bellum retains and perhaps has gained force, so long as its limitations and context are understood. As with any discourse, the participants hold the key. Therefore, we need to broaden our understanding to admit Asian and Islamic thought as well. From a strategic perspective, the political justification of war, so essential to mobilizing domestic and international support, as well as negotiating with adversaries, must base itself on the relevant cultural markers.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the contemporary anti-fascist movement against organized white supremacist movements in the United States. It describes differences between militant activists who typically respond to supremacists with direct, often violent action and non-militant activists whose responses take the form of peaceful, non-violent counter-rallies at times or locations wings in regard. The differences in tactical choices stem from differences among activists in political beliefs, membership and alliances with mainstream and/or conventional political and community structures, and the sense of threat from supremacists. In addition, the militancy of certain anti-fascist activist may be explained as part of new social movement adaptation of movement-countermovement dynamics where activists develop identity marked by specific cultural markers and engage in direct political action rather than relying on the state and existing political institutions.

Publication Type: Individual Paper
Abstract: The paper wants to shed light on the two organizations, The Committee against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training and the The League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience,
and their activism that have not garnered much attention in historical research.
On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 9981 that was intended to establish “equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the Armed Services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin” and eventually led to the integration of the American armed forces foremost during the Korean War.
The aforementioned organizations played an essential role in achieving the issuing of Truman’s order. In late 1947 and in mid-1948 respectively, A. Philip Randolph, the President of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and Grant Reynolds, an army chaplain during World War II and New York State Commissioner of Correction, founded the two civil rights groups to fight for the integration of the armed services.
Among other questions, it wants to consider ho and why these two organizations fought for their aims, how they overlapped and complemented each other, in what relation they stood e.g. to the NAACP. Whereas Truman’s executive order provoked Randolph’s and Reynolds’ abandonment of the League, which was continued by Bayard Rustin under a new name, the two continued their activities within Committee. The paper also wants to look at the impending conflicts and developments between their members following the executive order.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this article I aim to examine how the notion of sovereignty is undergoing significant changes in the current world through consideration of two of the most pressing global issues, terrorism and internal displacement. They have produced two corresponding approaches to state sovereignty that share the need to view sovereignty as measured in terms of the degree to which a state discharges its sovereign responsibilities. Beyond this starting point, however, I argue that the two approaches propose conflicting prescriptions for action against a failed state and that they even indicate two contrasting architectures of future global politics. In conclusion I suggest how the two approaches can be synthesized.