This project investigates the rise of the Yemeni insurgent group, AnsarAllah (commonly known as the Huthis), from its conception in the summer camps of the Zaidi Believing Youth movement to its successful rebellion against the internationally-backed Yemeni government in September 2014. The Huthi movement gained a large following by protesting government corruption, injustice, and Saudi and American activity in Yemen. A constructivist analysis of these grievances reveals flaws in the Yemeni nation-state building process as nationalist narratives were created in opposition to Zaidism—the second most practiced branch of Islam in Yemen and a defining element of Huthi identity. Under the guise of “transitional democracy,” the Yemeni state developed as a pluralist authoritarian regime that marginalized Zaidi communities. Anti-Zaidi discourse created exclusionary categories of Yemeni identity, which were intensified by a series of hostile interactions between the state and Huthi leaders. In 2004, the state rationalized violence against the Huthis by framing them as a “national security threat” and an Iranian proxy. These discourses mobilized additional domestic and international actors against the Huthis and catalyzed a series of complex conflicts that eventually culminated in the current civil war. Overall, the Huthis’ journey from summer camps to militancy was driven by marginalization in the new Yemeni nation-state, perceived threats from Saudi Arabia and the United States, and the explosion of state violence against their dissidence.
{"title":"Summer Camps and Civil War","authors":"Hannah Klapprodt","doi":"10.37513/ciar.v12i2.514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v12i2.514","url":null,"abstract":"This project investigates the rise of the Yemeni insurgent group, AnsarAllah (commonly known as the Huthis), from its conception in the summer camps of the Zaidi Believing Youth movement to its successful rebellion against the internationally-backed Yemeni government in September 2014. The Huthi movement gained a large following by protesting government corruption, injustice, and Saudi and American activity in Yemen. A constructivist analysis of these grievances reveals flaws in the Yemeni nation-state building process as nationalist narratives were created in opposition to Zaidism—the second most practiced branch of Islam in Yemen and a defining element of Huthi identity. Under the guise of “transitional democracy,” the Yemeni state developed as a pluralist authoritarian regime that marginalized Zaidi communities. Anti-Zaidi discourse created exclusionary categories of Yemeni identity, which were intensified by a series of hostile interactions between the state and Huthi leaders. In 2004, the state rationalized violence against the Huthis by framing them as a “national security threat” and an Iranian proxy. These discourses mobilized additional domestic and international actors against the Huthis and catalyzed a series of complex conflicts that eventually culminated in the current civil war. Overall, the Huthis’ journey from summer camps to militancy was driven by marginalization in the new Yemeni nation-state, perceived threats from Saudi Arabia and the United States, and the explosion of state violence against their dissidence.","PeriodicalId":222072,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Internation Affairs Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131802459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article seeks to study the policy conditions for the successful application of deterrence theory in cyberspace. While the tenets of classical deterrence theory are difficult to apply to cyberspace, understanding the applicability of these concepts in the cyber context is crucial as cyberspace continues to transform into a prominent domain of conflict. Classical deterrence has always been closely associated with a Cold War-era nuclear context, and its translation to cyberspace will require a broader approach to account for changes in the nature of the domain. The success of Estonia’s multi-faceted deterrence efforts after experiencing a large-scale cyber-attack in 2007 shows the effectiveness of such a conception of deterrence to the realm of cyberspace, through the implementation of international and domestic level policies. I analyze how Estonia has managed to implement this deterrence framework by punishment, denial, multilateral cooperation and promotion of international norms, and an increase in societal strength and resilience among its population.
{"title":"Exploring Policy Conditions for Cyber Deterrence","authors":"Lionel Oh","doi":"10.37513/ciar.v12i2.516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v12i2.516","url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to study the policy conditions for the successful application of deterrence theory in cyberspace. While the tenets of classical deterrence theory are difficult to apply to cyberspace, understanding the applicability of these concepts in the cyber context is crucial as cyberspace continues to transform into a prominent domain of conflict. Classical deterrence has always been closely associated with a Cold War-era nuclear context, and its translation to cyberspace will require a broader approach to account for changes in the nature of the domain. The success of Estonia’s multi-faceted deterrence efforts after experiencing a large-scale cyber-attack in 2007 shows the effectiveness of such a conception of deterrence to the realm of cyberspace, through the implementation of international and domestic level policies. I analyze how Estonia has managed to implement this deterrence framework by punishment, denial, multilateral cooperation and promotion of international norms, and an increase in societal strength and resilience among its population.","PeriodicalId":222072,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Internation Affairs Review","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117123767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After successive episodes of Russian aggression, both Estonia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remain on edge about the future of their relationship with Moscow. To understand how Estonia has deterred Russia from further hostile acts, this paper analyzes the Estonian government’s response to them and how the establishment of defense programs have made Estonia a pillar of anti-Russian policy in Europe. Such programs and policy changes which continue to deter Russia from these aggressive tactics include but are not limited to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, the EU’s East StratCom Task Force, and the development of dependable relationships between NATO, the EU, and the Estonian private defense sector. The paper also analyzes the overall successes and deficiencies of these policy changes, makes future recommendations for the Estonian government, and evaluates the implications of these changes in the broad realm of international security. Analyzing these successes and deficiencies is important for determining the overall effectiveness of the changes in Estonian policy over the past decade. Through in-person interviews with both American and Estonian government officials, online research, and interactions with academic experts on the subject, the paper argues these new programs and evolving relationships are an adequate and effective deterrent to prevent further Russian cyber and conventional military attacks.
{"title":"Changes in Estonian Defense Policy Following Episodes of Russian Aggression","authors":"Benjamin Cooper","doi":"10.37513/ciar.v12i1.511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v12i1.511","url":null,"abstract":"After successive episodes of Russian aggression, both Estonia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remain on edge about the future of their relationship with Moscow. To understand how Estonia has deterred Russia from further hostile acts, this paper analyzes the Estonian government’s response to them and how the establishment of defense programs have made Estonia a pillar of anti-Russian policy in Europe. Such programs and policy changes which continue to deter Russia from these aggressive tactics include but are not limited to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, the EU’s East StratCom Task Force, and the development of dependable relationships between NATO, the EU, and the Estonian private defense sector. The paper also analyzes the overall successes and deficiencies of these policy changes, makes future recommendations for the Estonian government, and evaluates the implications of these changes in the broad realm of international security. Analyzing these successes and deficiencies is important for determining the overall effectiveness of the changes in Estonian policy over the past decade. Through in-person interviews with both American and Estonian government officials, online research, and interactions with academic experts on the subject, the paper argues these new programs and evolving relationships are an adequate and effective deterrent to prevent further Russian cyber and conventional military attacks.","PeriodicalId":222072,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Internation Affairs Review","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115508804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United States’ increasing dependence on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), more commonly referred to as drones, to carry out targeted killings has captured the attention of several countries across the globe seeking to amplify their military capabilities. While most of the current literature focuses on the strategic value of UAVs as a tool for combating terrorism, scholars have largely overlooked the use of drones as a key to maintaining security between states. This project, in contrast, investigates the implications of drones for security dilemmas between countries. It examines the case of India due to its long-standing rivalry with Pakistan, its border dispute with China, and the prevalence of terrorism in the region. It anticipates that India’s leaders view the possession of drones by their rivals as a threat to their own national security, and thus aim to acquire similar technology to maintain the power balance. A content analysis of newspaper articles related to India’s drone acquisition indicates that drones are perceived by India’s leaders to be almost equally useful in fighting terrorism and balancing a state rival, which demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, drones do carry significance in interstate conflict.
{"title":"India’s Drones","authors":"Breanne Schneider","doi":"10.37513/ciar.v12i1.509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v12i1.509","url":null,"abstract":"The United States’ increasing dependence on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), more commonly referred to as drones, to carry out targeted killings has captured the attention of several countries across the globe seeking to amplify their military capabilities. While most of the current literature focuses on the strategic value of UAVs as a tool for combating terrorism, scholars have largely overlooked the use of drones as a key to maintaining security between states. This project, in contrast, investigates the implications of drones for security dilemmas between countries. It examines the case of India due to its long-standing rivalry with Pakistan, its border dispute with China, and the prevalence of terrorism in the region. It anticipates that India’s leaders view the possession of drones by their rivals as a threat to their own national security, and thus aim to acquire similar technology to maintain the power balance. A content analysis of newspaper articles related to India’s drone acquisition indicates that drones are perceived by India’s leaders to be almost equally useful in fighting terrorism and balancing a state rival, which demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, drones do carry significance in interstate conflict.","PeriodicalId":222072,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Internation Affairs Review","volume":"215 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134246202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The history of the United States’ involvement in international reveals a disproportionate timeline between signing and ratification. Notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the binding twin covenants enacting the goals of the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), features a 15-year delay following signing before ratification by the U.S. The agreement was viewed as inherently Western, and the United States took leadership during negotiations, becoming the primary promoter of the drafting process. Yet, domestic support for the agreement was seemingly inconsistent with its leading role, identifiable by the delay. The following analysis will evaluate the rationales—legal, institutional, and political—for the delay in the United States’ ratification of the ICCPR. It will then explore catalysts in the international sphere that incited the eventual ratification. Through close readings of Senate hearings, drafts of UN negotiation documents, and analysis of theoretical frameworks by which the United States’ system ratifies international agreements, the following synthesis is a variety of primary and secondary sources which explain the delay in ratification. The study reveals that the United States’ reputation of non-ratification has implications for its international credibility, affecting its ability to shape global politics. The ICCPR is used as a case that elucidates the United States’ rationale for ratifying, or neglecting to ratify, other international agreements; thus, this analysis will address the influence of international politics on domestic participation.
{"title":"A Reputation of Non-Ratification","authors":"Emily Russell","doi":"10.37513/ciar.v12i1.508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.37513/ciar.v12i1.508","url":null,"abstract":"The history of the United States’ involvement in international reveals a disproportionate timeline between signing and ratification. Notably, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), one of the binding twin covenants enacting the goals of the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), features a 15-year delay following signing before ratification by the U.S. The agreement was viewed as inherently Western, and the United States took leadership during negotiations, becoming the primary promoter of the drafting process. Yet, domestic support for the agreement was seemingly inconsistent with its leading role, identifiable by the delay. The following analysis will evaluate the rationales—legal, institutional, and political—for the delay in the United States’ ratification of the ICCPR. It will then explore catalysts in the international sphere that incited the eventual ratification. Through close readings of Senate hearings, drafts of UN negotiation documents, and analysis of theoretical frameworks by which the United States’ system ratifies international agreements, the following synthesis is a variety of primary and secondary sources which explain the delay in ratification. The study reveals that the United States’ reputation of non-ratification has implications for its international credibility, affecting its ability to shape global politics. The ICCPR is used as a case that elucidates the United States’ rationale for ratifying, or neglecting to ratify, other international agreements; thus, this analysis will address the influence of international politics on domestic participation.","PeriodicalId":222072,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Internation Affairs Review","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124736912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：