Comments for Anthony Clark Arend

Comment on Terrorists: Criminals or Combatants? by Anthony Clark Arend

Anthony Clark Arend — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:19:50 +0000

Ingrid,

Thanks so much for coming! I had a wonderful time and thought we had a great discussion! Look forward to seeing you again!

Tony

Comment on Terrorists: Criminals or Combatants? by Ingrid Pinheiro

Ingrid Pinheiro — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:11:53 +0000

Thank you Professor Arend for the evening discussion at the NorCal Hoyas event. It was a “walk down memory lane” – listening to you speak and the lively discussion that followed. Many thanks!

Comment on James Raymond Vreeland– Obama Administration needs to show “bold global leadership” to combat protectionist moves in US by Saira Samee

Saira Samee — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:19:04 +0000

Well articulated perspective on taking a multipolar global leadership approach to reclaiming and restoring American confidence in dealing with the financial challenges.

What connects us on a human level is far greater than what seemingly separates us on the surface.We must learn to appreciate and not fear differences.

Comment on Erin Conaton finally confirmed by Senate to be Under Secretary of the Air Force by Erin Conaton

Erin Conaton — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:31:48 +0000

Thank you, Tony, for all the wonderful support. All my best,
Erin

Comment on Will the White House reverse its decision on civilian trials for the 9/11 terrorists? by William "Chris" Yount

William "Chris" Yount — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:42:27 +0000

This is such a difficult decision and I don’t think there’s a clear cut correct answer. The tribunals glorify the terrorists and make it more difficult to give the impression of an impartial trial. That said, a civilian court isn’t necessarily going to give a more fair trial than a tribunal, puts it in the cross-hairs of terrorist organizations and some question whether the courts have the capability for dealing with large numbers of these cases (I don’t know if I have the expertise to qualify or dismiss that claim).

In the end, I believe that tribunals are the wrong way to go, but I don’t envy those that have to make the decision.

Comment on Does the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution limit foreign policy? by Anthony Clark Arend

Anthony Clark Arend — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:37:47 +0000

Good Question! We may have to see exactly how Kessler’s argument develops in subsequent installments, but I suspect your assessment is correct.

Comment on Does the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution limit foreign policy? by Gregg Deehan (Acting Protestant Chaplain, Montclair State University)

Gregg Deehan (Acting Protestant Chaplain, Montclair State University) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:44:54 +0000

So based on Kessler’s argument, is it true that the Establishment Clause wouldn’t bind foreign policy concerning a diplomatic entity that also is a religious institution in the United States? (i.e., the Vatican/Catholic Church?)

Comment on Why do dictatorships ratify human rights treaties? by Bill Petti

Bill Petti — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:09:12 +0000

Very interesting post. I am a sucker for all things signaling

I am very intrigued by the Rosendorff/Hollyer theory, but I’ve got a few questions/comments:

1) If it is well known that the conversion rate, if you will, for bringing accused torturers to justice in connection with the CAT is quite low, then why would a domestic audience see this as a credible signal? Any dictator could sign the treaty regardless of whether their type was of a moderate or a ‘bad ass’–if the signal could easily be sent by either type it can’t differentiate. Additionally, the more credible signal is one that actually demonstrates the will and, more importantly, the capability of the sender. In this case, if a dictator’s real aim and desire is to signal that they will do whatever it takes to stay in power why not make an example of revolutionaries, rebels, etc? Show that you have the will and capability to do whatever it takes to stay in power (thinking here of Walters work on why some states negotiate with separatist groups and others choose violent repression).

2) Given that, I am more inclined to see it as a low-cost, public relations move to placate domestic and international critics. By signing the CAT a dictator can point to his/her efforts to play by the same rules as other governments and to treat their citizens humanly. The next time they are getting reamed out at some summit or UN meeting they can say “yes, but, we did sign the CAT”. They don’t really need to send a credible signal with the move, just create a useful tool in their public relations arsenal.

Just my initial thoughts. In general, the data is quite intriguing–a puzzle well worth exploring.

Comment on Faith and the Global Agenda: Values for the Post-Crisis Economy– An new report from the World Economic Forum and Georgetown University by William "Chris" Yount

William "Chris" Yount — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:01:53 +0000

Alcibiades_Today,

I agree with you that the world’s religions have largely abandoned the playing field when it comes to MNCs (science, too, in my opinion), and it’s had a significantly negative impact.

I can’t go with you down the road that celebrates Iran’s separation from the world at large as a model for international stability. True, there might be some select economic benefits in regards to being cushioned from international financial swings, but they’ve also missed out on the type of development that is only possible when accessing international-level financing possibilities.

I also can’t support the idea that Ahmadinejad opted out of international dialogue and interaction because he had some economical foresight about what was going to happen. I believe the isolation was more a product of paranoia and xenophobia.

Love the handle, by the way. Alcibiades is one of my favorite tragic historical figures.

Comment on Catholic Church in France Rejects Ban on Full-Face Veils by William "Chris" Yount

William "Chris" Yount — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:43:50 +0000

Absolutely. It’s unrealistic and short-sighted to think that other countries or belief-systems will respect us and our beliefs unless we offer the same sort of respect to them.

Respect/understanding does not have to equal acceptance as truth, but we do need to accept that they have the same right to decide that we have.