The International Hostages Convention and National Liberation Movements

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wil D. Verwey
Keyword(s):  
National Liberation ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Liberation Movements ◽  
The U.S

On December 11, 1979, Anthony C. E. Quainton, Director of the U.S. State Department’s Office for Combatting Terrorism, responded to an inquiry about the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, in particular its Article 12, by stating that the Convention “does not provide a loophole for members of national liberation movements or anyone else and does not supply a means by which any State Party to the Hostages Convention can escape the prosecute or extradite requirement.”

American policy orientalized

2006 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-334
Author(s):  
Edmund F. Wehrle
Keyword(s):  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Diplomatic History ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
Temple University ◽  
South Vietnam ◽  
National Liberation Front ◽  
American Policy ◽  
Reign Of Terror ◽  
Ngo Dinh Diem ◽  
The U.S

America's Miracle Man in Vietnam presents a prime example of the controversial new cultural trend in U.S. diplomatic history. On the surface, the author's depiction of the process whereby Ngo Dinh Diem became America's candidate to head the new country of South Vietnam is familiar (see, for instance, George Herring, America's Longest War, Temple University Press, 1986, 50–69). Echoing others, Jacobs argues that the U.S. promotion of Diem ultimately led to severe setbacks in Southeast Asia. So blatant were Diem's flaws, Jacobs insists, virtually any prescient observer could have predicted his unsuitability to lead nascent South Vietnam. Diem had no political base, was “undeniably an autocrat,” and appeared to be an eccentric loner by virtually all accounts (38). Once in office, Diem predictably launched his “reign of terror and error,” alienating legions of his countrymen and strengthening his opposition, which emerged officially as the National Liberation Front in 1960 (17).

Hobbes’s Argument for the Practical Necessity of Colonization

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-41
Author(s):  
David James
Keyword(s):  
Human Nature ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
National Liberation ◽  
Science Of History ◽  
Practical Necessity ◽  
Liberation Movements ◽  
Historical Necessity

Hobbes attempts to show that practical necessity and human nature are related in such a way that colonization is unavoidable by virtue of its naturalness. Colonization is practically and historically necessary because unavoidable constraints generated by human nature combine with material and social factors to produce certain inevitable outcomes. Hobbes’s account of colonization can also be understood in terms of his negative idea of freedom. Hobbes fails, however, to provide a sufficient explanation of one aspect of modern colonialism, namely, the existence of national liberation movements, while the role of the sovereign implies a different idea of freedom to Hobbes’s purely negative one. This makes colonization appear less natural and necessary than he suggests. Finally, I explore the implications of Hobbes’s account of the causes of colonization in connection with the possibility of a ‘science’ of history and the idea of historical necessity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document