100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 50 - 52 out of 101 pages.
For whereas government and private measures against terrorism and other security concerns have certain measurable consequences, it isalso to be noted that they are evaluated by a citizenry that is more or less concerned about such issues irrespective of actual violations.The need is thereby affirmed for sociologists to examine the social conditions affecting security measures regardless of stated motives. Since the classic contributions of Emile Durkheim on the role of
law and punishment (Durkheim 1893), it can no longer suffice to view counterterrorism(and other forms of social control) as a mere dependent variable related to terrorism(and other crimes). Instead, as our analysis shows, a more useful framework examines the entire range of factors shaping surveillance activities, ranging from situational factors to deep-rooted cultural tradition.Impact D – Democracy PromotionDemocratic peace theory is inherently flawed – there’s no benefit to spreading American idealsSebastian Rosato 03, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, November 2003, American Political Science Review, Issue 4, pp 585-602, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” ?fromPage=online&aid=191046&fileId=S0003055403000893Thecausal logics that underpin democratic peace theory cannot explain why democracies remain at peace with one anotherbecause the mechanisms that make up these logics do not operate as stipulated by the theory’s proponents.In the case of the normative logic, liberal democracies do not reliably externalize their domestic norms of conflict resolution and do not treat one another with trust and respect when their interests clash.Similarly, in the case of the institutional logic, democratic leaders are not especially accountable to peaceloving publics or pacific interest groups, democracies are not particularly slow to mobilize or incapable of surprise attack, and open political competition offers no guarantee that a democracy will revealprivate information about its level of resolve.In view of these findings there are good reasons to doubt that joint democracy causes peace.Democratic peace theorists could counter this claim by pointing out that even in the absence of a good explanation for the democratic peace, the fact remains that democracies have rarely fought one another. In addition to casting doubt on existing explanations for the democratic peace, then, a comprehensive critique should also offer a positive account of the finding.One potential explanation is thatthe democratic peace is in fact an imperial peacebased on American power. This claim rests on two observations. First, the democratic peace is essentially a post-World War II phenomenon restricted to the Americas and Western Europe. Second, the United States has been the dominant power in both these regions since World War II and has placed an overriding emphasis on regional peace.