While it does not speak to mono/polycentrism question, an article
on emerging norms of (great power) war in the context of recent Iraq
standoff, is provocative (M. van Cheveld, "Saddam's Not So Strong," Wash.
Post. 8 March '98). After an incisive critique of the alleged arsenal
of "mass destruction" held by Iraq, Chevald concludes:
While it is hard to understand the motivation behind the United
States's belligerence, there is a larger and more positive lesson....Ever
since 1946, when first the Nuremburg trials and then the United Nations
Charter identified conducting "aggressive" war as a crime, states have
been losing their previously undisputed right to use force against their
neighbors. President Clinton's wrangling with the ... Security Council
and its emissary...Annan, brings to mind the way in which medieval rulers
once required the pope's consent before going to war; until about 1300
A.D., to wage war without the pontiff's blessing was to pay a heavy
political price. Now, at the end of the millennium, even the world's sole
remaining superpower finds it extraordinarily difficult to go to war
without first obtaining the sanction of international law.
Thus the recent crisis may be remembered, if at all, as one more
steppingstone toward de-legitimizing war between nations. And.
considering the havoc that such wars have wrought on the world during the
first half of the 20th century, that is not such a bad thing at all.
One quibble might be concerning the comment that "even" a
superpower may need international legal sanction for war --- Rather,
"above all" ... while a host of ethno-national, regional, local, pirate,
drug-linked, warlord, and terrorist-type groups carry on with relative
impunity, having little to lose.
Best -- Kay Moseley
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]