- 1983 . International Regimes 2 Ithaca : Cornell University Press . A popular definition of regime in international relations is provided by Stephen Krasner. According to him, international regime is “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” See, Stephen D. Krasner, “Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables,” in Stephen D. Krasner ed.
- 1992 . Economic Containment: CoCom and the Politics of East-West Trade Ithaca : Cornell University Press . For a discussion of CoCom and the U.S. export controls during the Cold War, see Michael Mastanduno, (
- Cupitt , Richard T. 1996 . and Japanese Nonproliferation Export Controls 174 – 76 . New York : University Press of America, Inc. . “From Containment to Counter-Proliferation: U.S. Export Control Policy in The Post-Cold War,” in Gary K. Bertsch, Richard T. Cupitt and Takehiko Yamamoto, eds., U.S.
- “Remarks by the President on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation at Fort Lesley J. McNair, National Defense University,” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House (Feb. 11, 2004). President Bush added that while in the Cold War Americans believed that deterrents made WMD a last resort, “What has changed in the 21st century is that, in the hands of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction would be a first resort.”
- Joseph A Christoff, Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office, “Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing U.S. Policy Tools for Combating proliferation,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate (Nov. 7, 2001, GAO-02-226T).
- “PSI Plenary Meeting: Chairman's Conclusions, London, 9–10 October, 2003,” available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/globalissues/psi/psi_2003_chairman_conclusions.html, accessed on on July 13, 2004.
- Art , Robert . 1992 . “The Four Functions of Force,” . In International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, Third Edition Edited by: Art , Robert and Jervis , Robert . 133 New York : HarperCollins Publishers . The major distinction between preemption and prevention is the calculation about how a threat is imminent. For preemption, it is so urgent that the state has almost no control over the timing of its action; in the case of prevention, the state can in a more leisurely way contemplate the timing of enemy's attack. See in, eds.
- “Statement on Proliferation Security Initiative: Statement by the Press Secretary,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House (Sept. 4, 2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/print/20030904-10.htmlaccessed on July 12, 2004 and “White House Fact Sheet: Proliferation Security Initiative,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House Sept. 4, 2003, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/print/20030904-11.htmlaccessed on July 12, 2004.
- David Anthony Denny, “Bolton Says Proliferation Security Initiative Has 'Twofold Aim'” Washington File, Dec. 19, 2003.
- “Statement on Proliferation Security Initiative,” the White House, Sept. 4, 2003.
- “Chairman's Statement: First Anniversary Proliferation Security Initiative Meeting, Krakow, 31 May–1 June 2004,” available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/statements/1st_psi_chairmans_statement_040601.htmlaccessed on July 12, 2004. According to the statement, the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (April 28, 2004) states that the Council is “gravely concerned by the threat of illicit trafficking in WMD and their means of delivery, and related materials.”
- “G-8 Action Plan on Nonproliferation,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House (June 9, 2004).
- “Statement by the Press Secretary: PSI,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, June 1, 2004, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/print/20040601-9.htmlaccessed on July 12, 2004.
- “PSI Plenary Meeting: Chairman's Conclusions, Lisbon, March 4–5, 2004.”
- “White House Fact Sheet,” Sept. 4, 2003.
- “PSI Plenary Meeting: Chairman's Conclusions, Lisbon, March 4–5, 2004,” available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/globalissues/psi/psi_2004_chairman_conclusions.htmlaccessed on July 13, 2004.
- The original 11 members include Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United States.
- “Statement by President,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, May 12, 2004, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/print/20040512-1.htmlaccessed on July 15, 2004.
- Statement by John Bolton in David Anthony Denny (Dec. 19, 2003).
- “Proliferation Security Initiative,” Global Security Organization, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/psi.htmaccessed on July 5, 2004.
- James Brooke, “Japan, Citing Safety Concerns, Detains North Korea Ships,” New York Times (June 10, 2003).
- Robert Marquand, “Ship's Seizure Sends Warning To N. Korea,” Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 11, 2003.
- “Remarks by the President on the War on Terror, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,” Office of the Press Secretary, the White House, July 12, 2004, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040712-5.htmlaccessed on July 15, 2004.
- Despite its general description of countries of proliferation concern, North Korea and Iran have been the main concern, thus the main target, of PSI from the beginning. In their endorsement of launching of PSI in 2003, both the G-8 Evian summit on June 1–3 and the EU-U.S. Joint Statement on the Proliferation of WMD of June 25 addressed North Korea and Iran as countries of proliferation concern with special emphasis.
- “Special Press Summary: North Korean Missiles Sales-Caught in the Act,” The Virtual Information Center, Dec. 11, 2002.
- The list under Article 19 includes threat to the sovereignty of the territorial state, fishing, willful pollution, surveying, interference with the communication of the state, the taking aboard or launching of military craft, a military exercise, propaganda against the coastal state, unloading or taking on cargo contrary to the law of state, violating the UN Charter and so forth. Benjamin Friedman, “The Proliferation Security Initiative: The Legal Challenge,” Bipartisan Security Group Policy Brief (Sept. 2003). And Article 23 says, “foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.” United Nation Convention on the Law of The Sea, available at http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/ls82_1.htm#article_23_foreign_nuclear_powered.
- “The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004),” adopted by the Security Council at its 4956th meeting on April 28, 2004.
- Resolution 1441 issued a strong warning against Iraqi defiance on weapons inspection. Yet, it did not specifically mention war as a possible response from the international community.
- Friedman, “The Proliferation Security Initiative: The Legal Challenge.” Policy Brief, Bipartisan Security Group Washington DC, Sept. 4, 2003.
- United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 19. 2 (a).
- “Russia Joins Bush's Drive Against WMDs,” Reuters, May 31, 2004.
- “Korea Joins Global Partnership Agfainst WMD,” Dong-a Ilbo, June 9, 2004.
- John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, “Lesson from Libya and North Korea's Strategic Choice,” a speech given at Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (July 21, 2004).
Korean Journal of Defense Analysis
Volume 16, 2004 - Issue 2