Questioning the U.S.'s Preemptive Imperative

Paper Summary:

Times have changed, and the days of "big-stick politics" need to be reexamined. The U.S.'s "Duty To Prevent" should be replaced with the UN's proposal of "The Responsibility to Protect." With legitimacy, bureaucracy and desirability of such policies in mind, this paper examines the necessity of a reevaluation of the U.S.'s policies in world politics intervention.

From the Paper:

"Political scientists and historians alike often refer to the days of 'big-stick politics' and nuclear arms racing as political dynamics of the past, left in the dust after the end of the Cold War. To many, this Hobbesian period marked a barbarous element of politics that is now past, replaced by the optimistic presence of TANs, NGOs, nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and human rights norm dissemination. "

More papers on Questioning the U.S.'s Preemptive Imperative:

• Essay # 141599 : "The U.S. Mythologizing Of The Architect And The Canadian Response"
• Essay # 141598 : "The U.S. Mythologizing Of The Architect And The Canadian Response"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: