Reshaping Rogue States: Preemption, Regime Change, and US Policy toward Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
Alexander T.J. Lennon, Camille Eiss
MIT Press, Jul 9, 2004 - Political Science - 392 pages
An analysis of the policies of preemption and regime change as well as an examination of US policy options for dealing with each country in the "axis of evil."
In January 2002, President George W. Bush declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea constituents of an "axis of evil." US strategy toward each of these countries has clearly varied since, yet similar issues and policy options have emerged for US relations with all three. Reshaping Rogue States seeks to improve our understanding of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as well as of current and future policy options to combat the threats these nations pose. The book's comprehensive analysis of preemption and regime change debates the circumstances under which each policy might be justified or legal under international law. Prominent strategists and policymakers consider alternatives to preemption—including prevention, counterproliferation, and cooperative security—and draw conclusions from efforts to bring about regime change in the past. Reshaping Rogue States also reviews the differing policy challenges presented by each so-called axis member. Specifically, it considers how the United States might strike a balance with North Korea through multilateral negotiations; the changes within Iran that call for changes in US policy; and the dilemmas the United States faces in post-Saddam Iraq, including continuing insurgency, instability, and the feasibility of democracy.
Results 1-5 of 29
... about the military use or misuse of the Osirak facility), the UN Security Council (
including the United States) roundly rejected Israel's invocation of the right to self-
defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter to justify its anticipatory action.
Under the regime of customary international law that developed long before the
UN Charter was adopted, it was generally accepted that preemptive force was
permissible in self-defense. There was, in other words, an accepted doctrine of ...
them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable
or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self- defense, must be
limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it."5 Throughout the pre-UN
Although the basic contours of Article 51 seem straightforward, its effect on the
customary right of anticipatory self-defense is unclear. If one reviews the
scholarly literature on this provision, writers seem to be divided into two camps.
On one ...
Given that the charter is sufficiently ambiguous on this question and that there
was a preexisting rule of customary international law allowing for anticipatory self
-defense, it is not necessary to establish that a customary rule has emerged to ...
What people are saying - Write a review
When to Target Leaders q Catherine Lotrionte
Toward a Grand Bargain with North Korea Michael OHanlon
Playing for the Long
A Blueprint for U S Policy toward a Unified Korea
Confronting Terrorism Gary Sick 246 Debating Irans Nuclear Aspirations Shahram Chubin and Robert S Litwak
Getting Past Stereotypes and Mythology Mahmood Sariolghalam
IRAQ AFTER SADDAM
Iraqs Neighbors Interests Jon B Alterman
Other editions - View all
North Korea in Quotation: A Worldwide Dictionary, 1948-2004
No preview available - 2005
The New Iranian Leadership: Ahmadinejad, Terrorism, Nuclear Ambition, and ...
Yonah Alexander,Milton M. Hoenig
No preview available - 2008