This analysis examines the role of NATO in democratic transition processes. The author argues that a lower level of threat to national security and a more cooperative approach with neighbors help stabilize democratic institutions and structures in countries in transitions. NATO has the tools to increase collaborative security and to assist countries in the development of national security strategies compatible with regional stability. These tools range from military assistance programs, to political dialogue initiatives.
This analysis suggests the idea that shared sovereignty and neotrusteeships are the result of the paradoxes entailed by the promotion of democracy by external intervention. The goal of democratization and the democratic attitude of recent international interventions lead to some contradictory principles, particularly between the respect of selfdetermination and external control and between temporary engagement and protracted international interference.
Regime change in a target country is one of the more common outcomes of a military intervention. Many states have assumed that they may be able to influence the direction of the regime change to conform to preferred outcomes, particularly in the direction of democratic shifts.
Recent scholarship has shown that the likelihood that American sponsored military interventions will bring about democracy over the long term is very low, even when democracy is a stated goal of the intervention. This research paper will extend this body of research to investigate when, and under what conditions, US interventions that are focused on
bringing about democratization are likely to result in better human rights conditions.
If US election opinion polls are anything to go by, Mitt Romney will not get a chance to rock the
boat of US-Chinese relations from November 2012 onwards. Most (moderate and well-informed)
analysts and commentators agree that this is good news given Romney’s announcements on how
he and his aides would be dealing with what they call a protectionist ‘currency manipulator’ trading
Se Romney corteggia Israele per conquistare il Gop
Most of the US public opinion generally remembers the 80s as a successful decade, characterized by a great economic recovery and the victory in the Cold War at the expense of the Soviet Union. Those years came after the uncertain 70s, when the American weakness was particularly visible. Many authors use to describe the then-President, Ronald Reagan, as the leading “actor” of that patriotic renaissance. More than thirty years on, the ghost of the US decline is back.
One of the most significant but overlooked factors in American electoral politics, especially among foreign observers, is the role played by religious issues. Since the 1980s, divisions in the electorate based on levels of religious observance have become increasingly prominent in determining partisanship and vote choice – so much so that, by 2008, the political gap between religious and secular Americans had come to dwarf more widely recognized divisions.
Every ten years it is decline time in the United States. The declinist vision is so recurrent that it seems a constant countermelody of American exceptionalism. The paper offers an appraisal of the recent American debate on U.S. decline.
A lively debate was recently resumed on the purported decline of the United States. Those who argue that the American hegemony won’t last for long base their claim on economic consid-erations. In military terms, however, evidence suggest different conclusions: compared to other major powers, the US has more and better capabilities – enough to protract the unipolar moment for a long time.