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}
}
  • Bruce W. Jentleson, C. Whytock
  • Published 2006
  • Political Science
  • International Security
  • 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… CONTINUE READING
    Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy
    • 344
    • PDF
    Soft Balancing against the United States
    • 555
    • PDF
    Hard Times for Soft Balancing
    • 229
    The United States and Libya: the limits of coercive diplomacy
    • 7
    • Highly Influenced
    Alliances in a Unipolar World
    • 171

    References

    Publications referenced by this paper.
    SHOWING 1-10 OF 60 REFERENCES
    Arms and Influence
    • 1,576
    Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work
    • 598
    Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy
    • 344
    • PDF
    Soft Balancing against the United States
    • 555
    • PDF
    Libya since Independence: Oil and State-building
    • 227
    Power versus prudence : why nations forgo nuclear weapons
    • 135
    • PDF