We are pleased to announce the publication of the first issue in EIA’s 30th anniversary volume. This issue includes an essay by Amitai Etzioni on how to define national sovereignty through rights and responsibilities; a roundtable on the relationship between Hans Morgenthau and America, with contributions by Cornelia Navari, Felix Rösch, Hartmut Behr, Christoph Frei, Richard Ned Lebow, and Douglas B. Klusmeyer; features by Patti Tamara Lenard on revocation of citizenship in democracies and Robert Sparrow on the case against autonomous weapons; a response by Helen Frowe to Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun’s article on jus ad vim, with a rejoinder by Daniel Brunstetter; and book reviews by Robert Howse and Jeffrey Mankoff.
Much of the reaction to Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech, beyond the campaign-related questions of whether this address makes him look more presidential or electable, has focused on whether he offered coherent policy proposals. What I would like to do is briefly address the question of the ethics behind the foreign policy vision that was contained […]
Morgenthau, like many other émigré scholars, was a “traveler between all worlds,” meaning that Morgenthau in America cannot be understood without having knowledge about Morgenthau in Europe.
This monograph reflects Morgenthau’s peculiar situation, as he inhabits two sometimes crucially different semantic and cultural contexts, but fails to bridge or broker them.
There is increasing speculation within military and policy circles that the future of armed conflict is likely to include extensive deployment of autonomous weapon systems. The ethical case for allowing autonomous targeting, at least in specific restricted domains, is stronger than critics have typically acknowledged—but such targeting still remains ethically problematic.
Rajan Menon and Eugene Rumer try to make sense of the Ukraine crisis for a general audience. The book’s major contribution lies in its attempt to provide what the authors term a “first cut at explaining the context, causes, and consequences” of a crisis that is still very much underway.
Jens David Ohlin seeks to expose the shaky social scientific and philosophical foundations of what he calls “New Realism,” which questions whether international law can ever compel or even guide states to act differently than according to what they perceive as their self-interest.
Must states comply with the strict standards of international law when they have sound consequentialist reasons for waging preventive wars to avoid future threats of harm?