Taking Control argues that neither side in the Brexit debate really understood the European Union or what was involved in reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty. The EU is neither a supranational nanny state, nor an internationalist peace project. It is the means by which Europe’s elites transformed their own states in order to rule the void where representative politics used to be. Leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient step towards closing the chasm between rulers and ruled. This book makes the democratic case for national sovereignty, arguing for a radical, forward-looking reconstitution of the British nation-state through strengthening representative democracy. It is essential for anyone who wonders why British politics is so dysfunctional and who wants to do better.

This book examines the normative tensions inherent in upward mobility within the international system, focusing particularly on the clash between sovereign self-interest and the putatively universal norms associated with international interventions. It provides extensive detail and deep analysis of Brazil's nature as a rising power, and that nature's implications for how the country crafts its international profile on issues such as intervention. In addition, the book proposes innovative ways of (re)organising thematic, conceptual and empirical research on the normative behaviour of emergent powers with regard to institutions of global governance and questions of intervention. In analysing what distinguishes Brazil as a rising power, the contributors begin from the assumption that participation in intervention is an increasingly crucial element in demonstrating the capacity and responsibility for which demand accrues as a state seeks increased international profile. As such, the debates around intervention serve as an indicative locus for examining the clash of norms that accompanies emergence as a global player. The book's approach is to organise the analysis around thematic rather than chronological or praxis-based lines, using the Brazilian case as an illustrative example capable of extrapolation to other emerging powers such as Turkey, India and others. This work draws together rich empirical detail with sophisticated and varied conceptual analysis and will be of interest to scholars of international relations, Latin-American politics and global governance.

This edited volume critically examines the widely supported doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', and investigates the claim that it embodies progressive values in international politics. Since the United Nations World Summit of 2005, a remarkable consensus has emerged in support of the doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P) - the idea that states and the international community bear a joint duty to protect peoples around the world from mass atrocities. While there has been plenty of discussion over how this doctrine can best be implemented, there has been no systematic criticism of the principles underlying R2P. This volume is the first critically to interrogate both the theoretical principles and the policy consequences of this doctrine. The authors in this collection argue that the doctrine of R2P does not in fact embody progressive values, and they explore the possibility that the R2P may undermine political accountability within states and international peace between them. This volume not only advances a novel set of arguments, but will also spur debate by offering views that are seldom heard in discussions of R2P. The aim of the volume is to bring a range of criticisms to bear from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including international law, political science, IR theory and security studies. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, human security, critical security studies and IR in general.

This edited volume critically examines the widely supported doctrine of the 'Responsibility to Protect', and investigates the claim that it embodies progressive values in international politics. Since the United Nations World Summit of 2005, a remarkable consensus has emerged in support of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect' (R2P) -- the idea that states and the international community bear a joint duty to protect peoples around the world from mass atrocities. While there has been plenty of discussion over how this doctrine can best be implemented, there has been no systematic criticism of the principles underlying R2P. This volume is the first critically to interrogate both the theoretical principles and the policy consequences of this doctrine. The authors in this collection argue that the doctrine of R2P does not in fact embody progressive values, and they explore the possibility that the R2P may undermine political accountability within states and international peace between them. This volume not only advances a novel set of arguments, but will also spur debate by offering views that are seldom heard in discussions of R2P. The aim of the volume is to bring a range of criticisms to bear from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including international law, political science, IR theory and security studies. This book will be of much interest to students of the Responsibility to Protect, humanitarian intervention, human security, critical security studies and IR in general.

This book examines the normative tensions inherent in upward mobility within the international system, focusing particularly on the clash between sovereign self-interest and the putatively universal norms associated with international interventions. It provides extensive detail and deep analysis of Brazil's nature as a rising power, and that nature's implications for how the country crafts its international profile on issues such as intervention. In addition, the book proposes innovative ways of (re)organising thematic, conceptual and empirical research on the normative behaviour of emergent powers with regard to institutions of global governance and questions of intervention. In analysing what distinguishes Brazil as a rising power, the contributors begin from the assumption that participation in intervention is an increasingly crucial element in demonstrating the capacity and responsibility for which demand accrues as a state seeks increased international profile. As such, the debates around intervention serve as an indicative locus for examining the clash of norms that accompanies emergence as a global player. The book's approach is to organise the analysis around thematic rather than chronological or praxis-based lines, using the Brazilian case as an illustrative example capable of extrapolation to other emerging powers such as Turkey, India and others. This work draws together rich empirical detail with sophisticated and varied conceptual analysis and will be of interest to scholars of international relations, Latin-American politics and global governance.

Written by leading scholars, this volume challenges the recent trend in international relations scholarship - the common antipathy to sovereignty. The classical doctrine of sovereignty is widely seen as totalitarian, producing external aggression and internal repression. Political leaders and opinion-makers throughout the world claim that the sovereign state is a barrier to efficient global governance and the protection of human rights. Two central claims are advanced in this book. First, that the sovereign state is being undermined not by the pressures of globalization but by a diminished sense of political possibility. Second, it demonstrates that those who deny the relevance of sovereignty have failed to offer superior alternatives to the sovereign state. Sovereignty remains the best institution to establish clear lines of political authority and accountability, preserving the idea that people shape collectively their own destiny. The authors claim that this positive idea of sovereignty as self-determination remains integral to politics both at the domestic and international levels. Politics Without Sovereignty will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, international relations, security studies, international law, development and European studies.

Written by leading scholars, this volume challenges the recent trend in international relations scholarship - the common antipathy to sovereignty. The classical doctrine of sovereignty is widely seen as totalitarian, producing external aggression and internal repression. Political leaders and opinion-makers throughout the world claim that the sovereign state is a barrier to efficient global governance and the protection of human rights. Two central claims are advanced in this book. First, that the sovereign state is being undermined not by the pressures of globalization but by a diminished sense of political possibility. Second, it demonstrates that those who deny the relevance of sovereignty have failed to offer superior alternatives to the sovereign state. Sovereignty remains the best institution to establish clear lines of political authority and accountability, preserving the idea that people shape collectively their own destiny. The authors claim that this positive idea of sovereignty as self-determination remains integral to politics both at the domestic and international levels. Politics Without Sovereignty will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, international relations, security studies, international law, development and European studies.

Cosmopolitan Dystopia shows that rather than populists or authoritarian great powers it is cosmopolitan liberals who have done the most to subvert the liberal international order. Cosmopolitan Dystopia explains how liberal cosmopolitanism has led us to treat new humanitarian crises as unprecedented demands for military action, thereby trapping us in a loop of endless war. Attempts to normalize humanitarian emergency through the doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect' has made for a paternalist understanding of state power that undercuts the representative functions of state sovereignty. The legacy of liberal intervention is a cosmopolitan dystopia of permanent war, insurrection by cosmopolitan jihadis and a new authoritarian vision of sovereignty in which states are responsible for their peoples rather than responsible to them. This book will be of vital interest to scholars and students of international relations, IR theory and human rights. -- .

Taking Control argues that neither side in the Brexit debate really understood the European Union or what was involved in reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty. The EU is neither a supranational nanny state, nor an internationalist peace project. It is the means by which Europe’s elites transformed their own states in order to rule the void where representative politics used to be. Leaving the EU is a necessary but not sufficient step towards closing the chasm between rulers and ruled. This book makes the democratic case for national sovereignty, arguing for a radical, forward-looking reconstitution of the British nation-state through strengthening representative democracy. It is essential for anyone who wonders why British politics is so dysfunctional and who wants to do better.

Cosmopolitan Dystopia shows that rather than populists or authoritarian great powers it is cosmopolitan liberals who have done the most to subvert the liberal international order. Cosmopolitan Dystopia explains how liberal cosmopolitanism has led us to treat new humanitarian crises as unprecedented demands for military action, thereby trapping us in a loop of endless war. Attempts to normalize humanitarian emergency through the doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect' has made for a paternalist understanding of state power that undercuts the representative functions of state sovereignty. The legacy of liberal intervention is a cosmopolitan dystopia of permanent war, insurrection by cosmopolitan jihadis and a new authoritarian vision of sovereignty in which states are responsible for their peoples rather than responsible to them. This book will be of vital interest to scholars and students of international relations, IR theory and human rights. -- .

Of all the tomes published on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, none will reckon with a key part of the story: what if the revolutionaries' dreams had come true, instead of being dashed? Yet, no tale of the Russian Revolution is complete without asking 'what if ...?' Lenin Lives! lays out a narrative account of how history might have happened differently if Lenin had lived long enough to see the global spread of the Russian Revolution to Western Europe and the USA. In one alternative world, instead of the grim authoritarian and autarkic states of the East, socialist revolution in the world's most advanced economies ushers in an era of global peace, progress and prosperity, with global federations substituting for nation-states and international organisations. In keeping with the hopes of European revolutionaries of the time, the early achievement of socialism leads to a drastic improvement in human progress, economic growth, democracy and freedom at the global level.

The huge number of security forces stationed around the world as United Nations peace- keepers is second only to the global military deployments of the USA. But most UN peace- keepers come from the emerging powers and developing states that comprise the global South. This is the first book to analyse this phenomenon at the international level. Such unprecedented deployments show that peacekeeping is the most widely tolerated use of force in international affairs today. Far from signalling progress towards global governance, Legions of Peace argues that UN peacekeeping must be understood in the context of continuing economic inequality and the uneven distribution of global power. Philip Cunliffe contends that through UN peace- keeping Western states have used their domination of international institutions to harness the armed forces of the global South. In so doing, Western states seek to reduce the political and military costs of hegemony and stave off their inevitable, long-term decline in power. This strategy has profound political implications. Instead of transcending the 'scourge of war', by globalising peacekeeping the UN has made peace dependent on the extensive and sustained deployment of armed force - a development that bodes ill for the future.