Who Won Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy

@article{Jentleson2006WhoWL,
  title={Who Won Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy},
  author={Bruce W. Jentleson and C. Whytock},
  journal={International Security},
  year={2006},
  volume={30},
  pages={47-86}
}
The debate over credit for Libya's shift away from rogue state policies, most especially by settling the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie terrorism case and abandoning its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, is lively politically and challenging analytically. It has important implications for theories of force and diplomacy, particularly coercive diplomacy, and policy debates including such cases as Iran and North Korea. U.S. coercive diplomacy against Libya can be divided into three phases: the… Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 51 REFERENCES
The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 1992–2003
  • Ian Hurd
  • Political Science
  • International Organization
  • 2005
Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy
  • T. V. Paul
  • Political Science
  • International Security
  • 2005
Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work
  • R. Pape
  • Political Science
  • International Security
  • 1997
Waiting for Balancing: Why the World Is Not Pushing Back
Soft Balancing against the United States
  • R. Pape
  • Political Science
  • International Security
  • 2005
The ‘war on terror’ in historical perspective
Never Say Never Again: Nuclear Reversal Revisited
  • A. Levite
  • Political Science
  • International Security
  • 2003
Hard Times for Soft Balancing
...
1
2
3
4
5
...