先发制人:国际冲突中的先发制人和预防

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Naval War College Review Pub Date : 2009-01-01 DOI:10.5860/choice.46-1724

T. Nichols

{"title":"先发制人:国际冲突中的先发制人和预防","authors":"T. Nichols","doi":"10.5860/choice.46-1724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,","PeriodicalId":51874,"journal":{"name":"Naval War College Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict\",\"authors\":\"T. Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,\",\"PeriodicalId\":51874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naval War College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 21

摘要

“传统的先发制人，”迈克尔·多伊尔写道，“过于严格，而布什政府的扩张性预防过于宽松”(第43页)。Doyle提出了一个关于如何限制和组织何时首先出击的决策的建议。对他来说，问题的关键不仅在于“预防性战争何时是正当的?”，还要考虑“什么样的决策标准最有可能得到国际社会的承认和采用?”《惊人第一》改编自道尔的《坦纳讲座》，

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict

‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,

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

Naval War College Review INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

自引率

0.00%

发文量