Military power and international order

'"Military power … remains an instrument with which no state has yet found it possible completely to dispense". So writes Michael Howard in discussing military power and international order'. In a time when abstracts did not precede articles in International Afairs , this was how the then Editor, N. P. MacDonald, introduced Michael Howard's article, 'Military power and international order', originally published in volume 40: 3, July 1964 and reprinted in this anniversary issue. It has been chosen because, 45 years later, it still retains astonishing freshness and relevance. Now in 2009, states, and especially the new US administration, will need to assess the emphasis they put on military means to achieve their foreign policy ends, while attempting to deal effectively with, for example, the confects in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and the threat of international terrorism. Michael Howard was not concerned at the same time with terrorism, or transnational actors, but there remain enduring lessons in his 1964 article about the role of the military instrument to advance states' interests.     

Bringing hegemony back in: the United States and international order

Hegemony suffers from a bad press. It is currently used to refer simply to United States primacy. Thus presented, the US is considered to have been hegemonic since 1945, or at least since 1990. Instead, hegemony is presented here as a legitimate institution of international society in which special rights and responsibilities are conferred on the hegemon. No such hegemony exists at present. However, given today's constellation of power, a circumscribed US hegemony potentially has a distinctive contribution to make to contemporary international order. To map out such a hegemonic institution, this article reviews some historical precedents. It finds that, rather than uniform, these have taken a variety of forms, especially with respect to the scope of the legitimacy and constituency within which they have operated. A scheme of hegemonies—singular, collective and coalitional—is set out as a more realistic way of thinking about hegemony's present potential.     

International nuclear order: a rejoinder

The article‘Nuclear enlightenment and counter‐enlightenment by William Walker opened the special issue of International Affairs which was published in May 2007. In it, he claimed that the United States departed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, at the height of its hegemonic influence, from a conception of international nuclear order that it had held to, with few interruptions, over several decades. By so doing, it contributed substantially to the order's currently perceived demise. In responding to criticisms from other participants in the special issue, William Walker defends his arguments while acknowledging the enlightenment trope's fragility; reemphasizes the essential contractual nature of the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which some critics denied; stresses the order's reliance on a judicious balancing (which has temporarily been lost) of realist and constitutional strategies; rejects assertions that the NPT is not a disarmament treaty; argues that the‘muddling through’advocated by some authors cannot suffice; and offers reasons why the despondency of several among them may have been overplayed, and why a new phase of consolidation of order might (just might) lie ahead, not least because of the reconsideration of US international strategies that has begun and the widely perceived urgency of preventing further proliferation and avoiding a resumption of arms racing.     

The African Union and the International Criminal Court: counteracting the crisis

In October 2016, South Africa became the first nation to withdraw from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), after Burundi began taking steps to leave it. Kenya is likely to follow, and other states, like Uganda, could take the same cue. The ICC is facing the most serious diplomatic crisis of its history, with the African Union (AU) denouncing double standards, neo‐colonialism and ‘white justice’, and regularly threatening to withdraw from the Rome Statute en masse. This article adopts both an interdisciplinary and a pragmatic policy‐oriented approach, with the aim of producing concrete recommendations to counteract the crisis. It firstly outlines the context of this crisis which, although not new, is becoming increasingly serious. It then responds to the AU's objections to the ICC. The court's ‘Afro‐centrism’ is explained by objective facts (the occurrence of mass crimes taking place on the African continent, the large number of African parties to the Rome Statute, the principle of complementarity) as well as by subjective decisions (a convergence of interest between the African leaders who brought the cases to the court themselves to weaken their opponents, and the prosecutor who needed quickly to find cases). Afro‐centrism should also be nuanced, as the ICC has already shown an interest in cases outside Africa and the extent to which it is a problem is a matter of perspective. The article also responds to the ‘peace vs justice’ objection, and emphasises that African states were instrumental in creating and sustaining the ICC. It finally formulates recommendations to ease relations between the ICC and AU, such as to investigate more outside Africa, reinforce African national jurisdictions, create intermediary institutional structures, promote regional‐level action, and rely more on ICC‐friendly African states and African civil society.     

上海万国红十字会救济日俄战灾述论

日俄战争爆发后,为“医治战地因战被伤之战国及局外兵民,救护战地之无关战事因战被难人民”,1904年3月10日,中、英、法、德、美五国在上海发起成立“上海万国红十字会”,筹款募捐,添设分会,实施救援。三年中,救护出险、收治伤病、留养资遣、赈济安置总人数达46·7万人,谱写出一曲国际人道主义的颂歌。     

In praise of the International Geographical Union

This viewpoint is a highly personal account of what the International Geographical Union (IGU) has meant for a 50‐year career in Canadian geography and is a consideration of the importance of the IGU to geographers world‐wide. The author's earliest experiences of the IGU, the IGU's Commissions, its disciplinary perspective, some political problems experienced by IGU scholars, and the IGU as a global geographical community are the main topics considered.     

International order after the financial crisis

The Great Recession has brought a structural break in international economic and political order. The geography of power is at present being dramatically transformed, notably by the rapid economic rise of China. What makes international order legitimate in a world in which political and economic foundations are rapidly shifting? This article examines analogies and lessons from a previous transition, from a world order centered on Britain, to a US dominated global order. That transition saw two moments of crisis, or turning points, the 1931 financial crisis at the height of the Great Depression, and the diplomatic and military catastrophe of Suez. The article looks at two interpretations of the transition, one by E. H. Carr focusing on the destruction in the Great Depression of a liberal economic and political order and its replacement by a world of brutal Great Power politics; the other by Charles Kindleberger, stressing the need for a benevolent hegemonic power to provide public goods for the world economy and the world political system. China is beginning to behave in the way expected of a Kindleberger hegemon, but also sees the possibilities of asserting power in a world that in the aftermath of 2008 looks much more like the chaotic and crisis‐ridden interwar period as interpreted by E. H. Carr. The challenge for the management of the new international order will lie in the ability of China to embrace the universalistic vision that underpinned previous eras of stability, in the nineteenth century and in the late twentieth century.     

民国四川地震灾害与政府救灾政策探略——以1933年的叠溪地震为例

2008年5月12日下午2点28分四川省汶川发生里氏8级大地震,而在历史上,四川就是一个地震频发且震灾烈度较大的地区.该文以 1933 年叠溪大地震为例,从灾害发生学的角度分析了叠溪地震可分为地震灾害和因地震造成山体崩塌而形成的堰塞湖溃决引发的洪水灾害两部分,详述了叠溪大地震给四川灾区人民的生命财产造成了严重的灾难性后果,特别是国民政府表现出来的反应迟缓,救灾措施不得力,不仅当时受到社会舆论的强烈批评,也给后人留下了深刻的印象;而内中蕴含的历史经验教训,亦多引人深思之处,留给我们今天抗震救灾宝贵的启迪.     

清代中期直隶灾后跨省赈粮调度的定量重建与特征分析

本文基于历史文献资料,提取清代中期(1723-1850)直隶灾后朝廷组织的跨省赈粮调度相关记载,对逐年赈粮数量进行定量重建。结合同期水旱灾害强度,对其反映的政府救灾力度的总体变化趋势及时空分布特征进行分析,并进一步讨论其影响因素。结果显示,赈粮调度在雍正朝还并非常规赈灾措施,至乾隆朝成为常态,数量上达到顶峰,至嘉道时期则显著衰落;在空间上更偏重于直隶中部的近畿一带,南部则相对易被忽视。当其兴盛之时,在直隶灾后赈济中发挥的作用不可替代,其演变过程在一定程度上既是清王朝兴衰历程的缩影,亦受到各方面因素(如皇帝意志、灾害强度、区位条件、仓储状况、荒政效率等)的综合作用。从中总结的历史经验教训,也可作为当前防灾实践的参考。     

The Soviet Union and the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency

The Soviet Union responded sceptically to Eisenhower’s ‘Atoms for Peace’ speech in December 1953 but eventually entered negotiations on the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It believed the IAEA would provide opportunities for political influence and scientific collaboration. It did not want the peaceful uses of atomic energy around the world to be dominated by the United States. It pressed for close ties between the new agency and the United Nations and supported India and other developing countries in their opposition to safeguards. The new Agency was to be a forum for competition as well as cooperation.     

Australian and People's Republic of China government conceptions of the international order

Through qualitative comparative analysis of policy documents and official statements over the last 10 years (2008–2018), this paper examines Australian and PRC government conceptions of the international order and the associated policy implications. Their understandings of the international order are informed by their self-defined national role conceptions and perceptions of other states, and are manifested in discussions of institutional reform, international law and human rights. Australia's self-conception as a middle power informs its emphasis on maintenance and US leadership of the existing order, while the PRC's self-conceptions as both a developing and established power enable it to frame itself as either an upholder or reformer of the order. Both governments highlight the ‘rules-based’ mechanisms of the WTO, and are more likely to agree on trade and economic issues than on other matters. Their responses to the 2016 South China Sea arbitration tribunal decision and discussions of the role of human rights in the international order suggest less agreement is likely on international law and human rights norms. While Australia considers the PRC a potential challenger to the existing order, Australia does not feature in PRC discussions of international order, suggesting its limited ability to affect PRC foreign policy decisions.