Some Aspects of Contemporary Inter-State Behaviour in the Context of Combating Terrorism*
Abstract
The brutal incidents occurring on 9/11 shaped the American administration’s perception of new forms of challenges to American values. The US is engaged in the war against terrorism that beginning in Afghanistan had been extended further to Iraq. But the invasion of Iraq based on so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had also been prosecuted on the principles of “preemption”, “unilateralism”, and “regime change”. In this case the conventional doctrine of preemption has been broadened to check even a long term threat developing. By unilaterally acting the US has disregarded the imperative of the United Nations (UN) authorisation. The principle of regime change was used to install a loyal regime. The American invasion has disregarded the hitherto practice of collective punishment to offender of international peace. Moreover it has questioned UN effectiveness in maintaining international peace and security. However the military means of fighting against terrorism has not contained its surge.
ABSTRAK
Insiden kejam yang berlaku pada 9/11 telah bentuk persepsi pentadbir Amerika Syarikat (AS) mengenai bentuk baru cabaran terhadap nilai yang dipegang oleh masyarakatnya. AS telah terlibat dalam peperangan menentang keganasan yang bermula di Afghanistan, dan yang kini telah merebak ke Iraq. Namun, serangan terhadap Iraq berdasarkan alasan weapons of mass destruction (WMD) telah disangkal atas prinsip ‘preemption’, ‘unilateralism’ dan perubahan rejim. Dalam kes ini doktrin konvensional berkaitan ‘preemption’ telah diperluaskan untuk menghalang sebarang bentuk ancaman yang mungkin timbul dalam jangka masa panjang. Dengan bertindak secara unilateral AS telah mengenepikan arahan imperative (imperative authorisation) Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (BBB). Prinsip perubahan rejim telah digunakan untuk melantik sebuah rejim yang taat. Serangan yang dilakukan AS telah mengenepikan amalan hukuman kolektif yang selalunya dikenakan terhadap perosak keamanan antarabangsa. Selain itu, serangan tersebut telah menimbulkan soalan tentang keberkesanan BBB dalam usaha memelihara keamanan dan keselamatan antarabangsa. Namun demikian, memerangi keganasan secara ketenteraan belum berjaya membendungnya.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Dutta, M. 2003. Juddobaj Markin Niti Project for New American Century. Aneek. 10th and 11th Issue, April-May, December.
Freedman, L. 2004. War in Iraq: Selling the Threat. Survival. Vol. 46, No. 2, Summer.
Fulbright, J.W. 1967. The Arrogance of Power. Middlesex.
Fuller, G.E. 2002. The Future of Political Islam. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 81, No. 2, March/April.
Gupta, M.G. 1986. Foreign Policies of Major World Powers. Agra.
Litwak, R.S. 2004. Non-proliferation and the Dilemmas of Regime Change. Surviv. Vol. 45, No. 4, Winter.
Morgenthau, H.J. 1981. Another Great Debate: The National Interest of the US. The American Political Science Review. Vol. XLVI, No. 4, 1952. Reprinted in Michael Smith et.al. (eds.). Perspectives on World Politics. London.
Nakhle, E.A. 1982. The Persian Gulf and American Policy.
Pollack, K.M. 2002. Next Stop Baghdad? Foreign Affairs. Vol. 81, No. 2, March/April.
Rice, C. 2000. Promoting the National Interest. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 79, No.1, January/February.
Roberts, A. 2003. Law and the Use of Force After Iraq. Survival. Vol. 45, No. 2, Summer.
Slocombe, W.B. 2003. Force, Pre-emption and Legitimacy. Survival. Vol. 45, No.1, Spring.
White House. September 2002. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
Zoellick, R.B. 2000. A Republican Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 79, No. 1, January/February.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN: 0126-5008
eISSN: 0126-8694