Rabindrinath Tagore (1861-1941) and Amartya Sen (1933-) defend a distinctive form of foreign policy internationalism in their writings. Instead of increasing the economic and military power of democratic states relative to their authoritarian competitors, Tagore and Sen focus on the need to diminish the capacity for violence in all states, regardless of regime type. In Sen's view, a program of nuclear disarmament, a coordinated reduction in global military spending, and a coordinated reduction in the global arms trade should be woven into international law. This book argues that the distance between Tagore and Sen's foreign policy recommendations and the policies pursued by the leading states in the international system is better understood when it is viewed in terms of the early Indian classical period. In particular, the idea that violent actions lead to violent responses-and are therefore both immoral and imprudent-is prominently expressed in the early Buddhist Discourses and the Ashokan inscriptions as well as the writings of Tagore and Sen. The ethical standard of the obligations of power articulated by Tagore and Sen provides a better foundation for thinking about human security than the social contract tradition.

The foreign policy writings of John Rawls and Amartya Sen provide insight and clarity into some of the most difficult problems confronting humanity. What is the most effective strategy of national defense? Does an effective strategy of national defense involve the possession of nuclear weapons? Why must the right to vote-and the right to health care and the right to an education and the right to employment-center the foreign policy of a democracy? These are questions Rawls and Sen raise and answer in their writings. This book describes the foreign policy of Rawls and Sen while building up towards a policy recommendation. Human rights protect civilians from heads of state and their armies-and the foreign policy of a democracy must promote human rights. But the nature of this recommendation is very specific. By redirecting some military spending to development goals, the core needs of more civilians can be better met while simultaneously advancing human security. http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/pov-nuclear-armament-is-a-lose-lose/ http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/pov-to-stop-bad-guys-ratify-the-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty/