Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: For both Arrighi and Hardt and Negri (H&N), "Imperialism" to use Hardt and
Negri formulation "is over." Classical 19th and early 20th c. imperialism,
as the extension of national sovereignty beyond the borders of the
nation-state no longer organizes nor articulates the world economy. For H&N
imperialism has been replaced by imperium (Empire) or "a series of national
or supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule." Empire is a
consequence of the globalization of Capital which H&N claim is unlike the
global spread of capitalism which has characterized the previous 450 years
of the world economy As such, Empire, is a qualitative break with the past
and all previous forms of hegemony.



What remains unanswered and largely unexplored in H&N's formulations is the
genesis of Empire. Other than attributing Empire to the globalization of
Capital, H&N do not adequately account for Empire's genesis. How, in other
words, has the "centered" hegemony of the US in the 25 years after World War
II been transformed what H&N call a "decentered apparatus of rule."? Arrighi's
considerations of modern "imperialism" provide important extremely insights
into this process. By expanding on and updating Arrighi's thought, I will show how the
genesis of Empire is a direct consequence of the creation, by the US, of
the structural conditions which were the necessary prerequisites for the
unfettered global expansion of Capital.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: No abstract available.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In view of the failure to uncover either weapons of mass destruction or any connection between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda, critics have charged that the American military intervention in Iraq was wholly without justification. Moreover, the Bush administration's indecisiveness over how to explain its decisions, combined with its inclination, when pressed, to appeal to a right of self-defence, have reinforced the impression of an overreactive, ad hoc foreign policy without coherent justification, and has tended to undermine the case more generally for American-led military intervention, especially without prior Security Council approval.

This article contests this understandable assessment of U.S. policy by identifying a coherent framework at its core - a new paradigm that can be termed 'Democratic imperialism’. The article describes the main features of this paradigm and how it can be defended within the contexts of international politics and law. It shows, in particular, how this new policy paradigm coheres well with the idea of "conditional sovereignty" which is gaining prominence both within the American foreign policy establishment and within the United Nations itself. In essence, sovereignty involves obligations both to citizens at home and to other states abroad, including the suppression of terrorism and protection from gross human rights abuses. Where states violate these obligation, their rights of sovereignty are subject to suspension. They thus become subject to intervention by other states with the means to ensure the fulfillment of their obligations, preferably, although not exclusively, with the approval of leading international institutions.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Proceeding