Jean-Marc Coicaud

Fault lines of international legitimacy

Acknowledgments Contributors Introduction Jean-Marc Coicard Part I. From the History and Structure of International Legitimacy to Fault Lines in Contemporary International Politics: 1. Legitimacy, across borders and over time Jean-Marc Coicard 2. Deconstructing international legitimacy Jean-Marc Coicard 3. The evolution of international order and fault lines of international legitimacy Jean-Marc Coicard 4. Intervention in a divided world: axes of legitimacy Nathaniel Berman 5. From Berlin to Bonn to Baghdad: a space for infinite justice Vasuki Nesiah Part II. The UN Security Council: Expression, Venue, and Promoter of International Legitimacy?: 6. Legal deliberation and argumentation in international decision making Ian Johnstone 7. The UN Security Council, regional arrangements, and peacekeeping operations Nishkala Suntharalingam 8. The Security Councils alliance of gender legitimacy: the symbolic capital of Resolution 1325 Dianne Otto Part III. Legitimacy of International Interventions and Hierarchy of International Rights: 9. Cosmopolitan militaries and cosmopolitan force Lorraine Elliott 10. Sovereignty, rights, and armed intervention: a dialectical perspective B. S. Chimni Part IV. In Search of New Forms of International Legitimacy: Between Power and Principles: 11. Determining how the legitimacy of intervention is discussed: a case study of international territorial administration Ralph Wilde 12. The legitimacy of economic sanctions: an analysis of humanitarian exemptions of sanctions regimes and the right to minimum sustenance Jun Matsukuma Conclusion: the legitimacies of international law Hilary Charlesworth Index.

Apology: A Small Yet Important Part of Justice

Jean-Marc Coicauds article begins by stressing the contemporary importance and the current trend of political apology. Recent political apologies offered in Australia and Canada to their indigenous populations form a significant part of this story. He then analyzes a number of intriguing paradoxes at the core of the dynamics of apology. These paradoxes give meaning to apology but also make the very idea of apology extremely challenging. They have to do with the relationships of apology with time, law and the unforgivable. The most intriguing of these paradoxes concerns apology and the unforgivable. Indeed, the greater the wrong, the more valuable the apology. But, then, the more difficult it becomes to issue and to accept an apology. This latter paradox is namely examined in the context of mass crimes, taken from Europe, Africa and Asia. As a whole these paradoxes are all the more intriguing considering what apology in a political context aims to accomplish, for the actor who issues the apology, for the one who receives it, for their relationship, and for the social environment in which this takes place. Jean-Marc Coicaud concludes his article by outlining what the rise of apology means for contemporary political culture.

Emotions in International Politics: Beyond Mainstream International Relations

In recent years, social scientists have increasingly recognized the interconnectedness of thought on emotions. Nowhere is the role of passions more evident than international politics, where pride, anger, guilt, fear, empathy, and other feelings are routinely on display. But in the absence of an overarching theory of emotions, how can we understand their role at the international level? Emotions in International Politics fills the need for theoretical tools in the new and rapidly growing subfield of international relations. Eminent scholars from a range of disciplines consider how emotions can be investigated from an international perspective involving collective players, drawing evidence from such emotionally fraught events as the Rwandan genocide, World War II, the 9/11 attacks, and the Iranian nuclear standoff. The path-breaking research collected in Emotions in International Politics will be a valuable theoretical guide to understanding conflict and cooperation in international relations.

A Brief Case Study of Germany and Japan: Emotions and Passions in the Making of World War II

Competing interests among big powers played a role in the making of World War II. But, and not separated from this, another element had a serious impact: the sense of psychological insecurity experienced, each in its own way, by Germany and Japan in the context of their quest for recognition by other major powers – Great Britain, France, Russia, and the United States – and the implications this had internationally. In connection with their material conditions (internal and international) compared to other great powers, this pushed Germany and Japan to embrace policies that were ultimately self-defeating. It led them to see and assess themselves, others, and the international environment in conflicting terms and, faced with the unwillingness of other big powers to accommodate them to the extent they wanted, to overplay their hand, with lethal outcomes as a result. This article follows two previous articles published in this journal. 1 It is a case study that focuses on Germany and Japan, and the making of World War II. In the first section, it begins with highlighting the overall relevance of this case study in the context of the analysis of emotions and passions in international politics. In the second section, it shows that both for Germany and Japan a sense of psychological insecurity regarding their international status and their urge to catch up and compensate, put them on a collision course with the great powers of the period. In the third part, the article explains how, in time, this contributed to the fact that Germany and Japan embraced negative and exclusionary political emotions and passions that translated into belligerent policies. In the fourth section, as a way to conclude, the article touches upon how a better understanding of the nature and role of emotions and passions in international affairs can encourage a psychology of peace, and international peace altogether.

Fault Lines of International Legitimacy: Contents

Acknowledgments Contributors Introduction Jean-Marc Coicard Part I. From the History and Structure of International Legitimacy to Fault Lines in Contemporary International Politics: 1. Legitimacy, across borders and over time Jean-Marc Coicard 2. Deconstructing international legitimacy Jean-Marc Coicard 3. The evolution of international order and fault lines of international legitimacy Jean-Marc Coicard 4. Intervention in a divided world: axes of legitimacy Nathaniel Berman 5. From Berlin to Bonn to Baghdad: a space for infinite justice Vasuki Nesiah Part II. The UN Security Council: Expression, Venue, and Promoter of International Legitimacy?: 6. Legal deliberation and argumentation in international decision making Ian Johnstone 7. The UN Security Council, regional arrangements, and peacekeeping operations Nishkala Suntharalingam 8. The Security Councils alliance of gender legitimacy: the symbolic capital of Resolution 1325 Dianne Otto Part III. Legitimacy of International Interventions and Hierarchy of International Rights: 9. Cosmopolitan militaries and cosmopolitan force Lorraine Elliott 10. Sovereignty, rights, and armed intervention: a dialectical perspective B. S. Chimni Part IV. In Search of New Forms of International Legitimacy: Between Power and Principles: 11. Determining how the legitimacy of intervention is discussed: a case study of international territorial administration Ralph Wilde 12. The legitimacy of economic sanctions: an analysis of humanitarian exemptions of sanctions regimes and the right to minimum sustenance Jun Matsukuma Conclusion: the legitimacies of international law Hilary Charlesworth Index.

Quest for International Security: Benefits of Justice versus the Trappings of Paranoia

Since 1990 much has happened in international security. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the strategic competition between the communist bloc and the West seemed to offer relatively good prospects for international peace. However, as the 1990’s went by, expectations of a more gentle time ahead progressively faded away. The multiplication of local conflicts and the millions of civilians killed as a result showed that history was still a ‘bloody mess’. During the 2000’s, the terrorist attacks and the Bush administration’s foreign policy brought back on a grand scale a sense of insecurity.