虚伪与规范执行:美国对伊拉克和叙利亚化学武器指控的回应

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
M. Samiei, J. Webster
{"title":"虚伪与规范执行:美国对伊拉克和叙利亚化学武器指控的回应","authors":"M. Samiei, J. Webster","doi":"10.1080/19436149.2023.2226886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of chemical weapons (CW) by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War appears to have been subject to far less decisive US responses than similar accusations against Syria during the Syrian civil war. However, the two instances have not yet been subject to direct scholarly comparison. This article treats the Iraqi and Syrian instances as two distinct cases and compares US actions to prevent, investigate and deter CW use on each occasion. After demonstrating that the US responded more decisively to the allegations against Syria, we then employ process tracing to locate both cases within existing theoretical discussions of US intervention in the global South generally, as well as CW norm enforcement in particular. In doing so, we propose that, in addition to other factors including the US aspiration to world dominance and its resultant framing of its material and security interests as well as a lesser regard for citizens of the global South, the anti-US stance of either the CW perpetrator or victim can also affect how the US responds to accusations of CW norm violation. This casts further doubt on the veracity of stated humanitarian motives for US intervention abroad.","PeriodicalId":44822,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Critique","volume":"32 1","pages":"323 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hypocrisy & Norm Enforcement: US Responses to Chemical Weapons Allegations against Iraq and Syria\",\"authors\":\"M. Samiei, J. Webster\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19436149.2023.2226886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The use of chemical weapons (CW) by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War appears to have been subject to far less decisive US responses than similar accusations against Syria during the Syrian civil war. However, the two instances have not yet been subject to direct scholarly comparison. This article treats the Iraqi and Syrian instances as two distinct cases and compares US actions to prevent, investigate and deter CW use on each occasion. After demonstrating that the US responded more decisively to the allegations against Syria, we then employ process tracing to locate both cases within existing theoretical discussions of US intervention in the global South generally, as well as CW norm enforcement in particular. In doing so, we propose that, in addition to other factors including the US aspiration to world dominance and its resultant framing of its material and security interests as well as a lesser regard for citizens of the global South, the anti-US stance of either the CW perpetrator or victim can also affect how the US responds to accusations of CW norm violation. This casts further doubt on the veracity of stated humanitarian motives for US intervention abroad.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Middle East Critique\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"323 - 345\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Middle East Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2023.2226886\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Critique","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2023.2226886","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要与叙利亚内战期间对叙利亚的类似指控相比,伊拉克在两伊战争期间使用化学武器似乎受到的美国回应要果断得多。然而,这两个例子还没有进行直接的学术比较。本文将伊拉克和叙利亚的情况视为两个不同的案例,并比较了美国在每种情况下预防、调查和威慑CW使用的行动。在证明美国对针对叙利亚的指控做出了更果断的回应后,我们随后采用流程追踪,在美国干预全球南方的现有理论讨论中,特别是CW规范的执行中,定位这两起案件。在这样做的过程中,我们建议,除了其他因素,包括美国对世界主导地位的渴望及其由此产生的对其物质和安全利益的界定,以及对全球南方公民的不太尊重之外,CW肇事者或受害者的反美立场也会影响美国对违反CW规范的指控的反应。这让人们进一步怀疑美国在海外干预的人道主义动机的真实性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hypocrisy & Norm Enforcement: US Responses to Chemical Weapons Allegations against Iraq and Syria
Abstract The use of chemical weapons (CW) by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War appears to have been subject to far less decisive US responses than similar accusations against Syria during the Syrian civil war. However, the two instances have not yet been subject to direct scholarly comparison. This article treats the Iraqi and Syrian instances as two distinct cases and compares US actions to prevent, investigate and deter CW use on each occasion. After demonstrating that the US responded more decisively to the allegations against Syria, we then employ process tracing to locate both cases within existing theoretical discussions of US intervention in the global South generally, as well as CW norm enforcement in particular. In doing so, we propose that, in addition to other factors including the US aspiration to world dominance and its resultant framing of its material and security interests as well as a lesser regard for citizens of the global South, the anti-US stance of either the CW perpetrator or victim can also affect how the US responds to accusations of CW norm violation. This casts further doubt on the veracity of stated humanitarian motives for US intervention abroad.
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
Middle East Critique
Middle East Critique AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
25
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信