Stanford University

International Relations

FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.

FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.

Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.

European Security and Defence Policy Workshop

Terrorism is a good example of the new security threats that seriously challenge what is still a largely state-centered security system. Many of today's most serious threats are global in scale. The traditional military force is far from adequate to confront these new challenges. It is crucial that the military effort will be coupled with other measures, such as international police cooperation, financial investigation and cooperation and diplomacy. Therefore a crucial task for the international community is to continue improving the civilian preparedness in crisis management. Here the OSCE can plan an important role. The terror attacks of September 11 accelerated the transformation process of the European security system. It had in particular an influence on NATO's role. Even though NATO invoked its Article 5 mutual protection clause the US chose not to act militarily through the alliance.

The purpose of this workshop is to explore the new post-cold war security agenda and to examine future security challenges facing Europe and the wide international system. It will also assess the relevance and utility of different actors and instruments for tacking these new security challenges, and examine options for the future institutional development of European security.

Developments in foreign policies at both sides of the Atlantic may significantly change US-EU security relations in the years ahead. The EU and NATO face new challenges, such as the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, and emerging potential threats, such as regional conflicts, terrorism, internationally organized crime, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Crisis management is the paradigm that forms the cornerstone of the operational efforts of NATO and the European Union (EU) has already shifted toward this type of activity. Both members of the EU in the framework of the "Petersberg Tasks" and members of NATO or PfP participate in crisis management, peace-keeping, humanitarian action and peace-making/peace-enforcement operations. The tasks of members of NATO and the EU would be blurred in the field of crisis management.

One of the central points of controversy amongst both academics and policy-makers is the nature and significance of security in the post-cold war world. For much of the cold war period the concept of security was largely defined in militarized terms. The main focus for investigation for both academics and statesmen- and women tended to be the military capabilities required by states to deal with the threats perceived to face them. More recently, however, the idea of security has been broadened to include political, economic, societal and environmental aspects as well as military. Above all, it is necessary for the European Union to develop a broader and more comprehensive approach to security. Future security challenges will not primarily concern territorial defense. While states will continue to pay attention to their territorial defense, other security challenges are likely to demand greater attention in the future. Human rights, environmental degradation, political stability and democracy, social issues, cultural and religious identity and migration are issues which are becoming ever more important for security and conflict prevention.

Though the possibility of a regional war remains, as in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, mass invasion and total war have ceased to be a threat to East or West. Instead, most threats to national security in Europe today are not directly military. They may evolve out of economic problems, ethnic hostility, or insecure and inefficient borders, which allow illegal migration and smuggling. Or they may be related to organized crime and corruption, both of which have an international dimension and undermine the healthy development of democracy and the market economy. Moreover, the proliferation of military or dual technology, including weapons of mass destruction - chemical and biological as well as nuclear - and their means of delivery, and the revolution in information technology present special challenges.

NATO and the EU have responded to Europe's evolving post-cold war order by redefining and expanding their roles and objectives. Despite institutional differences, the activities of NATO and the EU complement each other to strengthen the economic, political, and military dimensions of regional security and stability. Founded as a defensive alliance, NATO has revised its strategic concept to respond to the broader spectrum of the new threats now facing greater Europe - those ranging from traditional cases of cross-border aggression to interethnic conflicts and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, NATO is facilitating the integration and eventual membership of Central and Eastern European nations in the transatlantic security community. The EU has likewise emphasized regional integration as being key to a safe and stable Europe, particularly through the deepening of political and economic ties among current members and through extending EU membership to CEE countries.

Download pdf

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

Conferences

Wena Rosario

0
Wena Rosario_0.jpg

Wena Rosario served as APARC's center administrative associate. She graduated from the University of Santo Tomas in Manila with a BS in Chemistry. She obtained a certification in Human Resources Management from the University of California, Santa Cruz Extension Program. Before joining APARC, she worked as a Senior Staffing Analyst at an ISP company in San Ramon, California. She also has over 15 years of experience in corporate human resources.

Former Center Administrative Associate
Hide publication sections
Off
Date Label

Megalomaniacal Terrorism and Osama bin Laden

-

Professor Ehud Sprinzak is dean of the Lauder School of Government, Policy, and Diplomacy at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel and Professor of Political Science at Hebrew University. He has been a visiting professor at Princeton, Georgetown and American universities, and was a Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center and the United States Peace Institute. In 1995 he received the Gedalia Gal Fellowship from the Association for the Commemoration of Israel's Intelligence Community and was selected as the 1992 Baruch Yekutieli fellow of the Jerusalem Institute for the Study of Israel. In 1992 Sprinzak was awarded the Landau Prize for best political science book for The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right. Professor Sprinzak holds a Ph.D. from Yale University.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, 2nd floor, Encina Hall East

Professor Ehud Sprinzak Dean Speaker Lauder School of Government, Policy and Diplomacy
Panel Discussions

Faith, Politics, and Violence in Indonesia

-

American news from Indonesia has been alarming. "Asian Terror: Al Qaeda Seeks Niche in Indonesia, Officials Fear," headlined the New York Times on 23 January 2002. In the same issue, in a column ambitiously subtitled "What the Muslim World Really Feels," Tom Friedman described "an iron curtain of misunderstanding separating America and the Arab-Muslim world"--a world marked, in his view, by "enormous cultural resistance to believing anything good about America."

Indonesia is mainly Malay, not Arab, but it has more Muslims than any other country. How seriously should signs of jihadism there be taken? Ostensibly Islamist or jihadist movements include Darul Islam, HAMMAS, Laskar Jihad, the Islamic Defenders Front, the Islamic Youth Movement, Jemaah Islamiah, and KISDI. In Maluku and Sulawesi, Christians have killed Muslims and vice versa. Americans and their embassy in Jakarta have been threatened. How should such groups, events, and risks be described, explained, and responded to? In what specific ways are faith, politics, and violence intersecting in Indonesia--and with what implications for Indonesians and Americans?

Analysts have long portrayed Indonesian Muslims as exemplary in their openness and tolerance toward non-Muslims and, within the Muslim community, toward religious diversity, creativity, and reform. Were these observers naive? Or have jihadism and Islamism been grossly overdrawn, and for reasons that involve politics, prejudice, and sensationalism far more than actual conditions? In this volatile context, how realistic are current reformist projects to foster a "liberal Islam," a "moderate Islam," a "feminist Islam," or a distinctively accommodative "Indonesian Islam"--as against an avowedly "militant Islam" that would impose an "Islamic state"?

Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, East Wing

Donald K. Emmerson

0
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Affiliated Faculty, CDDRL
Affiliated Scholar, Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies
aparc_dke.jpg PhD

At Stanford, in addition to his work for the Southeast Asia Program and his affiliations with CDDRL and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Donald Emmerson has taught courses on Southeast Asia in East Asian Studies, International Policy Studies, and Political Science. He is active as an analyst of current policy issues involving Asia. In 2010 the National Bureau of Asian Research and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awarded him a two-year Research Associateship given to “top scholars from across the United States” who “have successfully bridged the gap between the academy and policy.”

Emmerson’s research interests include Southeast Asia-China-US relations, the South China Sea, and the future of ASEAN. His publications, authored or edited, span more than a dozen books and monographs and some 200 articles, chapters, and shorter pieces.  Recent writings include The Deer and the Dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st Century (ed., 2020); “‘No Sole Control’ in the South China Sea,” in Asia Policy  (2019); ASEAN @ 50, Southeast Asia @ Risk: What Should Be Done? (ed., 2018); “Singapore and Goliath?,” in Journal of Democracy (2018); “Mapping ASEAN’s Futures,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia (2017); and “ASEAN Between China and America: Is It Time to Try Horsing the Cow?,” in Trans-Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia (2017).

Earlier work includes “Sunnylands or Rancho Mirage? ASEAN and the South China Sea,” in YaleGlobal (2016); “The Spectrum of Comparisons: A Discussion,” in Pacific Affairs (2014); “Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia” in Indonesian Studies: The State of the Field (2013); “Is Indonesia Rising? It Depends” in Indonesia Rising (2012); “Southeast Asia: Minding the Gap between Democracy and Governance,” in Journal of Democracy (April 2012); “The Problem and Promise of Focality in World Affairs,” in Strategic Review (August 2011); An American Place at an Asian Table? Regionalism and Its Reasons (2011); Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation (2010); “The Useful Diversity of ‘Islamism’” and “Islamism: Pros, Cons, and Contexts” in Islamism: Conflicting Perspectives on Political Islam (2009); “Crisis and Consensus: America and ASEAN in a New Global Context” in Refreshing U.S.-Thai Relations (2009); and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (edited, 2008).

Prior to moving to Stanford in 1999, Emmerson was a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he won a campus-wide teaching award. That same year he helped monitor voting in Indonesia and East Timor for the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center. In the course of his career, he has taken part in numerous policy-related working groups focused on topics related to Southeast Asia; has testified before House and Senate committees on Asian affairs; and been a regular at gatherings such as the Asia Pacific Roundtable (Kuala Lumpur), the Bali Democracy Forum (Nusa Dua), and the Shangri-La Dialogue (Singapore). Places where he has held various visiting fellowships, including the Institute for Advanced Study and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 



Emmerson has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale and a BA in international affairs from Princeton. He is fluent in Indonesian, was fluent in French, and has lectured and written in both languages. He has lesser competence in Dutch, Javanese, and Russian. A former slam poet in English, he enjoys the spoken word and reads occasionally under a nom de plume with the Not Yet Dead Poets Society in Redwood City, CA. He and his wife Carolyn met in high school in Lebanon. They have two children. He was born in Tokyo, the son of U.S. Foreign Service Officer John K. Emmerson, who wrote the Japanese Thread among other books.

China and the World

Learn more

Policy Perspectives on the South China Sea

Learn more

Selected Multimedia

All people Back to top
Hide publication sections
Off
Date Label
Donald K. Emmerson Professor Moderator
Ullil Abshar Abdalla Executive Director Panelist Indonesia Conference on Religion and Peace
Moeslim Abdurrahman Vice President Panelist Muhammadiyah
Lies Marcoes Natsir Researcher Panelist Association for the Development of Pesantren and Scoiety
Douglas Ramage Representative Panelist Asia Foundation (Jakarta)
Southeast Asia Program

Socially Responsible Entrepreneurship Discussion Panel

-

Struggling over how to choose between doing well and doing good? Come hear a panel of business leaders who have achieved both, creating successful businesses while also giving back, supporting social initiatives, and/or promoting social good. Panelists will discuss the detailed tactics of how they were able to structure and manage their companies in order to create socially responsible businesses.

Sponsored by GSB Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, GSB Public Management Program, and the Stanford Entrepreneurship Network composed of the Stanford Project on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the Stanford Technology Ventures Program, BASES, Medical Device Network, Office of Technology Licensing, Stanford Law School, Office of Corporate Relations, and the US-Asia Technology Management Center.

Bishop Auditorium
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University

David Brady

Hoover Memorial Bldg, Room 350
Stanford, California, 94305-6010

(650) 723-9702 (650) 723-1687
0
Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor in Public Policy, Bowen H. & Janice Arthur McCoy Professor in Leadership Values, Professor of Political Science
brady.jpg

David Brady is deputy director and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is also the Bowen H. and Janice Arthur McCoy Professor of Political Science and Ethics in the Stanford Graduate School of Business and professor of political science in the School of Humanities and Sciences at the university.

Brady is an expert on the U.S. Congress and congressional decision making. His current research focuses on the political history of the U.S. Congress, the history of U.S. election results, and public policy processes in general.

His recent publications include, with John Cogan, "Out of Step, Out of Office," American Political Science Review, March 2001; with John Cogan and Morris Fiorina, Change and Continuity in House Elections (Stanford University Press, 2000); Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton (Westview Press, 1999); with John Cogan and Doug Rivers, How the Republicans Captured the House: An Assessment of the 1994 Midterm Elections (Hoover Essays in Public Policy, 1995); and The 1996 House Elections: Reaffirming the Conservative Trend (Hoover Essays in Public Policy, 1997). Brady is also author of Congressional Voting in a Partisan Era (University of Kansas Press, 1973) and Critical Elections in the U.S. House of Representatives (Stanford University Press, 1988).

Brady has been on continuing appointment at Stanford University since 1987. He was associate dean from 1997 to 2001 at Stanford University; a fellow at the center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences from 1985 to 1986 and again in 2001-2; the Autrey Professor at Rice University, 1980-87; and an associate professor and professor at the University of Houston, 1972-79.

In 1995 and 2000 he received the Congressional Quarterly Prize for the "best paper on a legislative topic." In 1992 he received the Dinkelspiel Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching from Stanford University, and in 1993 he received the Phi Beta Kappa Award for best teacher at Stanford University.

Brady taught previously at Rice University, where he was honored with the George Brown Award for Superior Teaching. He also received the Richard F. Fenno Award of the American Political Science Association for the "best book on legislative studies" published in 1988-89.

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Brady received a B.S. degree from Western Illinois University and an M.A. in 1967 and a Ph.D. in 1970 from the University of Iowa. He was a C.I.C. scholar at the University of Michigan from 1964 to 1965.

David Brady Bowen H. and Janice Arthur McCoy Professor of Political Science and Leadership Values Moderator Stanford Graduate School of Business
Jay Coen Gilbert CEO Panelist AND1
Ben Klasky Executive Director Panelist Net Impact
Jil Zilligen Vice President Panelist Patagonia
Lee Zimmerman Founder Panelist First Light
Seminars
Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE)

Entrepreneurs' Access to Private Equity in China: The Role of Social Capital

-

Dr. Bat Batjargal is visiting scholar at the Center for Russian and East European Studies, Stanford University. He holds a lecturer position at London Business School and is assistant professor in strategy at Beijing University School of Management. His Ph.D. is from the University of Oxford. Previously, he has held visiting appointments at Harvard University, United Nations University in Tokyo, and the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. He is the author of several research articles on entrepreneurship, and the book "Entrepreneurship in the New Russia: The Resource Based View" to be published by Edward Elgar in 2002.

Okimoto Conference Room, Third Floor, Encina Hall, East Wing

Bat Batjargal Visiting Scholar Stanford Center for Russian and East European Studies
Seminars
Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE)
Subscribe to International Relations