Is the US really exceptional in terms of its willingness to take universal human rights seriously? According to the rhetoric of American political leaders, the United States has a unique and lasting commitment to human rights principles and to a liberal world order centered on rule of law and human dignity. But when push comes to shove-most recently in Libya and Syria--the United States failed to stop atrocities and dithered as disorder spread in both places. This book takes on the myths surrounding US foreign policy and the future of world order. Weighing impulses toward parochial nationalism against the ideal of cosmopolitan internationalism, the authors posit that what may be emerging is a new brand of American globalism, or a foreign policy that gives primacy to national self-interest but does so with considerable interest in and genuine attention to universal human rights and a willingness to suffer and pay for those outside its borders-at least on occasion. The occasions of exception-such as Libya and Syria-provide case studies for critical analysis and allow the authors to look to emerging dominant powers, especially China, for indicators of new challenges to the commitment to universal human rights and humanitarian affairs in the context of the ongoing clash between liberalism and realism. The book is guided by four central questions: 1) What is the relationship between cosmopolitan international standards and narrow national self-interest in US policy on human rights and humanitarian affairs? 2) What is the role of American public opinion and does it play any significant role in shaping US policy in this dialectical clash? 3) Beyond public opinion, what other factors account for the shifting interplay of liberal and realist inclinations in Washington policy making? 4) In the 21st century and as global power shifts, what are the current views and policies of other countries when it comes to the application of human rights and humanitarian affairs?

It is commonplace by now that Bush administration has-in pursuit of its foreign policy goals-often demonstrated a preference for doctrinal-if not, ideological-unilateralism. But, is this approach a sustainable foreign policy in an increasingly globalized world?
In "American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World," several leading foreign policy and international relations experts consider the long term prospects and implications of U.S. foreign policy as it has been shaped and practiced during the presidency of George W. Bush. The essays in this collection--based on the research of well-respected scholars such as Ole Holsti, Loch Johnson, John Ruggie, Jack Donnelly, Robert Leiber, Karen Mingst, and Edward Luck--offer a clear assessment: while U.S. resources are substantial, Washington's ability to shape outcomes in the world is challenged by its expansive foreign policy goals, its exceptionalist approach to international relations, serious questions about the limits of its hard power resources as well as fundamental changes in the global system. American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World illustrates one of the central ironies of the contemporary situation in foreign affairs and international relations: that at the very time of the "unipolar moment," the world has become globalized to such an extent that the unilateralism of the Bush Administration leads as much to resistance as it does to coercion, compliance, and cooperation.

It is commonplace by now that Bush administration has-in pursuit of its foreign policy goals-often demonstrated a preference for doctrinal-if not, ideological-unilateralism. But, is this approach a sustainable foreign policy in an increasingly globalized world?
In "American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World," several leading foreign policy and international relations experts consider the long term prospects and implications of U.S. foreign policy as it has been shaped and practiced during the presidency of George W. Bush. The essays in this collection--based on the research of well-respected scholars such as Ole Holsti, Loch Johnson, John Ruggie, Jack Donnelly, Robert Leiber, Karen Mingst, and Edward Luck--offer a clear assessment: while U.S. resources are substantial, Washington's ability to shape outcomes in the world is challenged by its expansive foreign policy goals, its exceptionalist approach to international relations, serious questions about the limits of its hard power resources as well as fundamental changes in the global system. American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World illustrates one of the central ironies of the contemporary situation in foreign affairs and international relations: that at the very time of the "unipolar moment," the world has become globalized to such an extent that the unilateralism of the Bush Administration leads as much to resistance as it does to coercion, compliance, and cooperation.

The aim of this book is to analyse why and how states respond to human security, both at home and abroad. Although states still define security as "the defense of territory" from military attack, increasingly security pertains to the protection of human beings from violence. This violence can emerge from rebels, drug traffickers, terrorism, and even environmental and demographic changes. While previous literature in this field has provided rich empirical detail about human security crises, it is generally quiet about how states respond to these crises. State Responses to Human Security fills this lacuna by bringing in concepts from international security studies and focusing on states' perceptions of power and the changing nature of human security. Instead of debating whether or not human security exists, the authors in this volume agree that human security has been redefined to include policies associated with violence toward individuals and groups, and draw on recent events in the Middle East, China and Mexico to understand how and when human security issues prompt state responses and affect international relations. The case studies analysed in this book suggest that states respond to human security threats differently, but in both the domestic context and abroad, power and perceptions matter greatly in shaping states' reactions to human security concerns. This book will be of much interest to students of human security, foreign policy, international relations and security studies in general.

Is the US really exceptional in terms of its willingness to take universal human rights seriously? According to the rhetoric of American political leaders, the United States has a unique and lasting commitment to human rights principles and to a liberal world order centered on rule of law and human dignity. But when push comes to shove-most recently in Libya and Syria--the United States failed to stop atrocities and dithered as disorder spread in both places. This book takes on the myths surrounding US foreign policy and the future of world order. Weighing impulses toward parochial nationalism against the ideal of cosmopolitan internationalism, the authors posit that what may be emerging is a new brand of American globalism, or a foreign policy that gives primacy to national self-interest but does so with considerable interest in and genuine attention to universal human rights and a willingness to suffer and pay for those outside its borders-at least on occasion. The occasions of exception-such as Libya and Syria-provide case studies for critical analysis and allow the authors to look to emerging dominant powers, especially China, for indicators of new challenges to the commitment to universal human rights and humanitarian affairs in the context of the ongoing clash between liberalism and realism. The book is guided by four central questions: 1) What is the relationship between cosmopolitan international standards and narrow national self-interest in US policy on human rights and humanitarian affairs? 2) What is the role of American public opinion and does it play any significant role in shaping US policy in this dialectical clash? 3) Beyond public opinion, what other factors account for the shifting interplay of liberal and realist inclinations in Washington policy making? 4) In the 21st century and as global power shifts, what are the current views and policies of other countries when it comes to the application of human rights and humanitarian affairs?

In most post-conflict countries nongovernmental organizations are everywhere, but their presence is misunderstood. In The NGO Game Patrice McMahon investigates the unintended outcomes of what she calls the NGO boom in Bosnia and Kosovo. Using her years of fieldwork and interviews, McMahon argues that when international actors try to rebuild and reconstruct post-conflict countries, they often rely on and look to NGOs. Although policymakers and scholars tend to accept and even celebrate NGO involvement in post-conflict and transitioning countries, they rarely examine why NGOs have become so popular, what NGOs do, or how they affect everyday life.After a conflict, international NGOs descend on a country, local NGOs pop up everywhere, and money and energy flow into strengthening the organizations. In time, the frenzy of activity slows, the internationals go home, local groups disappear from sight, and the NGO boom goes bust. Instead of peace and stability, the embrace of NGOs and the enthusiasm for international peacebuilding turns to disappointment, if not cynicism. For many in the Balkans and other post-conflict environments, NGOs are not an aid to building a lasting peace but are part of the problem because of the turmoil they foster during their life cycles in a given country. The NGO Game will be useful to practitioners and policymakers interested in improving peacebuilding, the role of NGOs in peace and development, and the sustainability of local initiatives in post-conflict countries.

In most post-conflict countries nongovernmental organizations are everywhere, but their presence is misunderstood. In The NGO Game Patrice McMahon investigates the unintended outcomes of what she calls the NGO boom in Bosnia and Kosovo. Using her years of fieldwork and interviews, McMahon argues that when international actors try to rebuild and reconstruct post-conflict countries, they often rely on and look to NGOs. Although policymakers and scholars tend to accept and even celebrate NGO involvement in post-conflict and transitioning countries, they rarely examine why NGOs have become so popular, what NGOs do, or how they affect everyday life.After a conflict, international NGOs descend on a country, local NGOs pop up everywhere, and money and energy flow into strengthening the organizations. In time, the frenzy of activity slows, the internationals go home, local groups disappear from sight, and the NGO boom goes bust. Instead of peace and stability, the embrace of NGOs and the enthusiasm for international peacebuilding turns to disappointment, if not cynicism. For many in the Balkans and other post-conflict environments, NGOs are not an aid to building a lasting peace but are part of the problem because of the turmoil they foster during their life cycles in a given country. The NGO Game will be useful to practitioners and policymakers interested in improving peacebuilding, the role of NGOs in peace and development, and the sustainability of local initiatives in post-conflict countries.