This collection interrogates the representation of humanitarian crisis and catastrophe, and the refraction of humanitarian intervention and action, from the mid-twentieth century to the present, across a diverse range of media forms: traditional and contemporary screen media (film, television and online video) as well as newspapers, memoirs, music festivals and social media platforms (such as Facebook, YouTube and Flickr). The book thus explores the historical, cultural and political contexts that have shaped the mediation of humanitarian relationships since the middle of the twentieth century. Together, the chapters illustrate the continuities and connections, as well as the differences, which have characterised the mediatisation of both states of emergency and acts of amelioration. The authors reveal and explore the significant synergies between the humanitarian enterprise, the endeavour to alleviate the suffering of particular groups, and media representations, and their modes of addressing and appealing to specific publics. The chapters consider the ways in which media texts, technologies and practices reflect and shape the shifting moral, political, ethical, rhetorical, ideological and material dimensions of international humanitarian emergency and intervention, and have become integral to the changing relationships between organisations, institutions, governments, individual actors and entire sectors.
You're not logged in.
You're not logged in.
You're not logged in.
You're not logged in.
This chapter explores the elements which have enabled and supported nuclearism over the past seventy-five years. The building of nuclearism can be seen as intertwined with the creation of a nuclear hegemony, one that has allowed for the imposition of a particular global nuclear order. These elements of nuclearism are as follows: the language used to describe the role of nuclear weapons and the overall discourse that this has created; the suppression of humanitarian concerns about nuclear weapons, and the deliberate avoidance of acknowledging the implications of nuclear weapons’ use; the decision-making processes and the ‘exclusivity’ which has enabled national security elites to plan for nuclear war largely free from public oversight, in essence denying any real democratic deliberation on the topic and insulating decision-makers from external questioning; the material costs devoted to nuclear weapons programmes, which has served to elevate the status of these weapons; and the subversion of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its associated regime by the P5 states, in their attempt to ensure that the global nuclear order remains essentially static, always favouring themselves, the ‘recognized’ nuclear states, as the hegemons of this order.
-
-
Part I: The dominance of nuclearism
-
Part II: The transition – from the Humanitarian Initiative to the prohibition treaty
-
Part III: Rejecting nuclearism
-
Part IV: Ending nuclearism?
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 104 | 71 | 11 |
| Full Text Views | 26 | 23 | 11 |
| PDF Downloads | 38 | 34 | 19 |
This study explores the normative dimension of the evolving role of the United Nations in peace and security and, ultimately, in governance. What is dealt with here is both the UN's changing raison d'être and the wider normative context within which the organisation is located. The study looks at the UN through the window of one of its most contentious, yet least understood, practices: active involvement in intra-state conflicts as epitomised by UN peacekeeping. Drawing on the conceptual tools provided by the ‘historical structural’ approach, it seeks to understand how and why the international community continuously reinterprets or redefines the UN's role with regard to such conflicts. The study concentrates on intra-state ‘peacekeeping environments’, and examines what changes, if any, have occurred to the normative basis of UN peacekeeping in intra-state conflicts from the early 1960s to the early 1990s. One of the original aspects of the study is its analytical framework, where the conceptualisation of ‘normative basis’ revolves around objectives, functions and authority, and is closely connected with the institutionalised values in the UN Charter such as state sovereignty, human rights and socio-economic development.
Limiting institutions?
The challenge of Eurasian security governance
Eurasian security governance has received increasing attention since 1989. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the institution that best served the security interests of the West in its competition with the Soviet Union, is now relatively ill-equipped resolve the threats emanating from Eurasia to the Atlantic system of security governance. This book investigates the important role played by identity politics in the shaping of the Eurasian security environment. It investigates both the state in post-Soviet Eurasia as the primary site of institutionalisation and the state's concerted international action in the sphere of security. This investigation requires a major caveat: state-centric approaches to security impose analytical costs by obscuring substate and transnational actors and processes. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon marked the maturation of what had been described as the 'new terrorism'. Jervis has argued that the western system of security governance produced a security community that was contingent upon five necessary and sufficient conditions. The United States has made an effort to integrate China, Russia into the Atlantic security system via the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation has become engaged in disseminating security concerns in fields such as environment, energy and economy. If the end of the Cold War left America triumphant, Russia's new geopolitical hand seemed a terrible demotion. Successfully rebalancing the West and building a collaborative system with Russia, China, Europe and America probably requires more wisdom and skill from the world's leaders.