THE RISE AND DECLINE OF LIBYA AS A ROGUE STATE (original) (raw)

Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US security policy

European Journal of International Relations, 2011

This article examines how the foundations of the 'rogue states' security narrative in the United States developed prior to the declaration of the George W. Bush administration's 'Global War on Terror' and President Bush's representation of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an 'axis of evil'. The article argues that the puzzle of how US post-Cold War foreign and defence policy came to be focused on 'irrational' -but militarily inferior -adversaries can be understood through analysing how actors within the US defence community discursively constructed discrete international crises as the trigger for a major shift in US threat scenarios. This is developed through an examination of two crucial episodes in the construction of post-Cold War US national security interests: the crisis in the Persian Gulf in 1990-1 and the North Korean nuclear crisis in 1993-4. The article suggests the importance of historicizing contests over the interpretation of international crises in order to both better understand the process through which a country's national security interests are defined and to gain greater analytical purchase on how security narratives are reconstructed during processes of systemic change.

On the Fringes of the International Community: The Making and Survival of “Rogue States”

S+F, 2009

Studies on "rogue states" often present normative analyses focused on the perspective of Western actors. From a purely on "rogue states" often present normative analyses focused on the perspective of Western actors. From a purely analytical point of view, the present article steps away from this tradition and aims to examine the process of designating actors as "rogue states", its impact on them, and their capabilities to defy stigmatization. The argument developed proceeds in two steps. Firstly, the paper discloses and discusses characteristic features of states that lead to them being labeled "rogue states." Thereby the paradoxical situation occurs that "rogue states" can be seen either as a part of the international community or as an entity being excluded from this community. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the selection process of "rogue states" is based on biased securitization policies. Secondly, despite being exposed to significant external pressure, most "rogue states" have shown a remark able resistance to transforming their political conduct. Two main sources of strength are identified: the ability of "rogue states" to draw material and ideational resources from the international system and their disposal over state capacities.

We haven't seen the last of the rogue state

Prima facie, the rogue state is a notorious disturber of international peace and security. While US President Obama sought to make a clean break from the hawkish US foreign policy under George W Bush, this paper argues that the administration will not be able to do away with the category of rogue states. Using Jacques Derrida's thinking about rogues, this article explores the useful social role that the rogue state plays in defining the international community and looks at Obama's move away from intervention and towards isolation as a means of distancing the excluded other.

Contemporary effect of rogue states on international security

Contemporary effect of rogue states on international security, 2022

In the past decades, the increase in Global politics has attracted many schools of different disciplines such as social science, international relations, and humanities. It has created a platform for increasing the knowledge of students for understanding the dynamics of political concepts and how they relate to real-world concepts. Many state actors have transformed themselves into making policies that do not align with international security standards. According to Kotb & Jeong, (2021), rogue states have advanced the act of terrorism around the globe which has consequently affected the socio-political and socio-economic development in the world. The United States of America amongst other nations have declared many nations rogue states because of the conduct of their policies that are designed dangerously and unpredictably to threaten international security and regardless of international laws (Sidorkin & Sarwal, 2021). In Afghanistan (de facto), Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela in the middle east and around, are on the list of nations considered by the United States of America as rogue states (Abdollahpour, 2019, Greg, 2017). Most of these nations have conducted their foreign policies disregarding the framework of international law and posing threat to international security. Owing to related activities of terrorism and violence consistently practiced in these nations and miscreants, Monstrosity, ne'er-do-well, and outlaws are all signs that have determined the ranking of these nations as rogue states (Hugo, 2018). For example, All the insurgency-controlled nations whether local insurgence or Rogue states are possible threats to other nations. There is a speculative spillover effect of their activities over the cross-border nations imposing their ideologies over the inhabitants of the nation Suárez, T. R. (2018). A typical example is that in 2014 the Islamic State terrorist movement in Syria raised its black-white flag over Raqqa in Syria killing thousands of people that they found not in compliance with their ideologies and laws. That was the genesis of the rapid spread of ISIS resulting in the capturing of many other cities in the country totalling almost the size of Britain (Gentile, 2018). Another identifiable rogue state is Sudan. During the political unrest that accounted for the genocide of the capital Darfur. This paper aims to critically analyze the effect of rogue states and terrorism as global concern issues. Primarily focusing on analyzing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the involvement of the non-proliferation treaty states (NPT), the United States, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France, and China in ensuring international security (Su, X. 2022).

Rogue America: Benevolent Hegemon or Occupying Tyrant

While there is a trend toward an overly militaristic American foreign policy, this is due more to the American military’s responsiveness and capacity to accomplish non-military activities than a rogue state strategy dedicated to the rule of force. However, American strategic communications have been ineffectual in articulating this distinction, overcoming the stigma associated with militaries as instruments of oppression, and in conveying to the world a concise, sustained and positive message of its National strategy.

Rogue States – State Sponsors of Terrorism?

German Law Journal, 2002

Since 1994, the United States of America have been warning of a new threat posed by so-called ‘rogue states'. (1) Following 11th September 2001, a number of these so-called rogue states have been targeted as responsible for the attacks or as a result of fears that they are plan-ning further terrorist acts. The classification of certain states by degrading terminology by the United States not only seems to be fully justifiable vis-à-vis the realisation of an emerging danger; furthermore, it could be seen as movement within the international community to-wards the identification of states which threaten international security. Thus, it is important to look behind the terms: which states fall into the category of rogue states and what consequences could follow for public international law from such classification?

Rogue States. An Analysis of Undemocratic States in the Contemporary International System

Undemocratic Systems of the Post-Cold War World: A Comparative Analysis of Selected States, 2023

Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba are not usual actors on the global stage, as their undemocratic nature manifests not only in domestic policies but also in contemporary foreign affairs. Diverging in their norms and behavior from accepted standards of international relations of the post-Cold War world, they all have been recognized as so called 'rogue states': sovereign system units representing political nonconformity, which stand a threat to liberalism, democracy, and peace. The article seeks to define the role of the aforementioned undemocratic systems in the contemporary international reality, which is characterized by connectivity, globalization, capitalism, and American predominance by analyzing the characteristics of Moscow's, Tehran's, Pyongyang's, and Havana's role, image, and revisionist anti-Western stance in contemporary system.

Conclusion. Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy, and Public Diplomacy

Isolate or Engage : Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy, and Public Diplomacy, 2015

GOVERNMENTS have essentially two choices when dealing with adversarial states: isolate them or engage them. For nearly one hundred years, this choice has been at the center of the United States’ foreign policy, as evidenced in its relations with a group of adversarial states that have frustrated US foreign policy goals for extended periods and in different ways: the USSR/Russia, the PRC/China, North Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Our primary focus in this book has been on evaluating an important policy puzzle: When the US government pursues such wider strategies as containment or deterrence, which involve policies to isolate the government of an adversarial state—manifested by the absence or limited presence of official diplomatic relations—how (and how effectively) does the United States go about seeking to influence or engage that state’s public so that it will influence its own government to adopt less hostile and more favorable views of US foreign policies specifically and of American society in general? Stating the puzzle in this way implies that engaging a foreign public as part of wider strategies of regime change (ousting an adversarial government from power), as distinct from regime behavior change (incentivizing an adversarial government to comply with international norms), must be seen not as public diplomacy but as something else altogether, since it does not seek to change policies but to change a government.

Engaging Adversaries: Myths and Realities in American Foreign Policy

American policy-makers and politicians present specious rationales for abjuring diplomatic engagement with adversarial regimes and actors. The conventional wisdom is that negotiating with adver- saries is futile and a form of reward that the enemy will exploit. This tool of statecraft, therefore, should be avoided. However, many of the objections for avoiding diplomacy are suspect when exam- ined closely. In addition, though prominent adversaries like Iran have generally shunned the United States, it has regularly engaged other hostile and adversarial regimes and non-state actors. The selective use of specious reasons contributes to an American foreign policy that often prefers the isolation and containment of ‘rogue states.’ Additionally, myths like the futility of appeasing adversaries have taken hold, and practitioners rarely question it. The post-Cold War American ‘diplomacy allergy’ is often counter-productive and stands in contrast to Cold War pragmatism.