ASSESSING THE LEGALITY OF PILOTLESS DRONE ATTACKS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

PLEASE NOTE: THIS SEMINAR HAS BEEN CANCELLED.

The Next Intervention and Statebuilding Seminar takes place this Thursday; details below.

10th March 2011           
ASSESSING THE LEGALITY OF PILOTLESS DRONE ATTACKS UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Dr Robert Barnidge,

School of Law,

University of Reading

Please note, the seminar starts at 18:30 rather than 18:00 (Westminster Forum, 5th Floor, 32-38 Wells St)

All are welcome to attend; drinks and nibbles will be provided.

Tell all!

All the best,

Aidan

'The Ontology of Danger: Recasting the Human Subject in Discourses of Vulnerability and Resilience',

Professor Chandler's paper 'The Ontology of Danger: Recasting the Human Subject in Discourses of Vulnerability and Resilience',  at the 'Problematising Danger' workshop, King's College London, 21-22 February 2011, is available as a podcast via this link.

World View Interview

Below is a link to a project run by Youtube, where one world leader is interviewed every month .
The questions are sent in by 'normal' people.
So far Barack Obama and David Cameron have been interviewed.
World View Interviews

Johanna Larsson  
Undergraduate Student,
Department of Politics and International Relations

"Liberal Militarism and the US National Security State: Revisiting the 'Liberal Moment'"

Dr Bryan Maybee, Queen Mary, University of London
Title: "Liberal Militarism and the US National Security State: Revisiting the 'Liberal Moment'"
Thursday 3rd March, 18:00-20:00, Westminster Forum, 5th Floor, 32-38 Wells Street.

All welcome; drinks and nibbles provided.

Abstract: That a ‘national security state’ was built in the post-World War II period is a commonplace characterisation of the postwar US state. While there are differing interpretations of exactly what this means, all demonstrate that the US national security state was distinctive in its particular version of militarism. The paper focuses on such claims in order to theorise specific varieties of militarism that emerged in postwar period, demonstrating that the US version was a species of militarism characterised as ‘liberal militarism’, that emerged due to a particular ideology of national security that triumphed in the postwar period. The importance of liberal militarism is not only in its external manifestations, but in how a broad ideology of national security implied a particularly liberal ordering of state and society, both internally and externally.

Bio: Dr Bryan Mabee is Senior Lecturer in International Politics at Queen Mary, University of London. He is the author of 'The Globalization of Security: State Power, Security Provision and Legitimacy', and co-editor of 'Mercenaries, Pirates, Bandits and Empires: Private Violence in Historical Context'.

Organiser contact: Dr Aidan Hehir, DPIR. A.Hehir@westminster.ac.uk

What Makes Bahrain Different?

While the Bahraini national population remains resolute in continuing their protests, the success of their revolt looks a lot less assured than the successful revolutions which took place in Tunisia and Egypt, or that are currently taking place in Libya and Yemen.

The horrors that the Bahraini population have faced at the hands of the Al-Khalifa monarchy are comparable to those faced by Egyptians under Mubarak, or by Tunisians under Ben Ali.

"Sovereignty as Responsibility": Video of Professor Welsh's seminar

Hi,
Last night's Intervention and Statebuilding seminar with Professor Welsh was a great sucess and once again very well attended; apologies to those who didn't get seats!
A video of her presentation is available here.
Thanks to Professor Welsh and all who attended and hope to see you at the next seminar in the series...
All the best,
Aidan

Born Posthumously: Rethinking the Shared Characteristics of the ICC and the R2P

Born Posthumously: Rethinking the Shared Characteristics of the ICC and the R2P[1]

David Chandler (University of Westminster) d.chandler@wmin.ac.uk

Introduction

This paper argues that both the ICC and the R2P have had to overcome immense difficulties as they were born out of the retreat of a certain global perspective of international regulation that, in short, could be understood within a liberal governing rationality. [2] The post-interventionist world no longer counter positions external intervention to sovereignty as if this was a zero-sum game, or articulates intervention in the language of a clash of rights or as a problem which needs a legal solution, but rather sees the internationalisation of state forms as a process of empowerment, of capacity- and capability-building. Despite the increased regulatory engagement, the discourse is one of prevention and the building of sovereignty, not of intervention and the denial of sovereignty.[3] In their attempts to come to terms with this different – post-interventionist - framing of the international sphere both institutions have adapted, with the R2P leading the way and the ICC following more slowly as it has more formal institutional baggage. The forms of adaptation illustrate clearly how our understanding of the international sphere, and intervention within this, has shifted from the 1990s, when these institutions were initially conceived, to the 2010s were it appears that these institutions are finding their feet and regaining international credibility, articulating the modes of reasoning of a post-interventionist world.