36 resultados para Political Science, International Law and Relations
em University of Queensland eSpace - Australia
Resumo:
This article calls for a widening of the debate about humanitarian intervention to incorporate insights from constructivism, 'Welsh School' Critical Security Studies, and critical approaches to Third World International Relations. After identifying a series of problems with the contemporary debate, which is dominated by the English School, it calls for a broadening of the concept of intervention and suggests a need to rethink the meaning of humanitarianism and terms such as the 'supreme humanitarian emergency'.
Resumo:
Recently, there has been much speculation about the impact of international media coverage of Australia's position on Indigenous people, migrants and asylum seekers on other nations' images of Australia. In this experiment we examined whether there was any basis for such concerns by considering the short-term impact of negative TV coverage of Australians on Canadian viewers. A questionnaire provided baseline data on Canadian students' perceptions of Australians and Australian race relations. Four months later, the students were assigned to one of three conditions that varied media contact with Australians. Students viewed one of two television programs (about right-wing political independent, Pauline Hanson, and her emotive criticisms of Aborigines and Asian immigrants or about an ethnically-mixed group of young Australians and their positive sense of cultural identity), or they viewed no program (no contact control). Results indicated that both positive and negative media coverage of Australians affected Canadians' views of Australia in the short-term. In particular, negative coverage (of Hanson) promoted less favourable views of Australians and Australian race relations over time and relative to the positive media and no media control conditions. The media's role in shaping international images is discussed.
Resumo:
This paper is based on 'The perennial ugly duckling-public sector education in tertiary institutions before and after Coombs, an invited contribution on management education delivered at the Sydney Academics Symposium on the Coombs Commission in Retrospect, IPAA National Conference, 28 November 2001.
Resumo:
Is it ever justifiable to target non-combatants deliberately? This article assesses Michael Walzer's claim that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants may be justifiable during 'supreme emergencies', a view that has received some support but that has elicited little debate. It argues that the supreme emergencies exception to the prohibition on targeting non-combatants is problematic for at least four reasons. First, its utilitarianism contradicts Walzer's wider ethics of war based on a conception of human rights. Second, the exception may undermine the principle of non-combatant immunity. Third, it is based on a historical fallacy. Finally, it is predicated on a strategic fallacy-the idea that killing noncombatants can win wars. The case for rejecting the exception, however, has been opposed by those who persuasively argue that it is wrong to tie leaders' hands when they confront supreme emergencies. The final part of the article addresses this question and suggests that the principle of proportionality may give political leaders room for manoeuvre in supreme emergencies without permitting them deliberately to target non-combatants.