先发制人:国际冲突中的先发制人和预防

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Naval War College Review Pub Date : 2009-01-01 DOI:10.5860/choice.46-1724
T. Nichols
{"title":"先发制人:国际冲突中的先发制人和预防","authors":"T. Nichols","doi":"10.5860/choice.46-1724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,","PeriodicalId":51874,"journal":{"name":"Naval War College Review","volume":"62 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict\",\"authors\":\"T. Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,\",\"PeriodicalId\":51874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naval War College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

“传统的先发制人,”迈克尔·多伊尔写道,“过于严格,而布什政府的扩张性预防过于宽松”(第43页)。Doyle提出了一个关于如何限制和组织何时首先出击的决策的建议。对他来说,问题的关键不仅在于“预防性战争何时是正当的?”,还要考虑“什么样的决策标准最有可能得到国际社会的承认和采用?”《惊人第一》改编自道尔的《坦纳讲座》,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict
‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Naval War College Review
Naval War College Review INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Soviet Union and Northern Waters Anti-Personnel Weapons No-First-Use ‘The World Turned Upside-Down’ The United States and Japan in the Western Pacific
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1