Journal of Diplomatic Language

JDL Vol. V, Number 1: 14 March 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE 1: Interpretation of the Moon Treaty by Dr. Harold "Will" Bashor, Ph.D. American Graduate School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Paris, France. Nine years of negotiations in the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), countless travaux préparatoires, and vigorous drafting and re-drafting of an agreement to govern the activities of states on the Moon culminated in unanimous acceptance of the Moon Treaty by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. It was not until 1979 that the space powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, agreed on the inclusion of the Common Heritage of Mankind principle, a principle with language very favorable to the developing countries. Also, the agreement helped to "flesh out" many provisions of the subsequent, well-ratified Outer Space Treaty which had entered into force a decade earlier. However, despite the noble efforts on the part of the delegates of COPUOS and the General Assembly, the Moon Treaty has since been ratified by only twelve states and signed by only four. This disappointing response has been the focus of this paper which attempts to present a more complete picture of the processes involved in bringing an international agreement for the Moon to fruition. This is an intricate task because of the many factors that influence the social and political processes of treaty negotiation.

ARTICLE 2:    Genuine Consultation or Prior Notice? The Inevitability of American Missile Defenses Dr. Matthew G. Gerber, Assistant Professor, Director of Debate, Dept. of Communication Studies, Baylor University, Waco, TX.This essay attempts to answer several questions centering around the wave of bilateral diplomacy that surrounded the American abrogation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (A.B.M.) Treaty. First, what factors explain Russian acquiescence in the face of American plans for ballistic missile defense (BMD) when their opposition at the beginning of Bush's presidency had been so venomous? Second, and more importantly from a rhetorical perspective, to what degree can the muted Russian response to Bush's decision to abrogate the ABM Treaty be attributed to the arguments and rhetorical strategies employed by the President? Further, if the Russian response, or lack thereof, was not due to the persuasive power of Bush's appeals, then what factors begin to explain it? Third, how did Bush's arguments function with and impact upon the domestic U.S. audience? The potentially negative Russian response to missile defense was a core concern of the Congress, the public, and of the American arms control community. This essay will begin to answer these questions by examining the nature of Russian opinions toward missile defense, identifying the core concerns and objections held by the Russian leadership, and by uncovering and examining the most critical arguments made by the Bush administration to justify BMD to the Russian audience. I will argue that the strategies employed by the Bush administration were ultimately addressed at overlapping audiences. On the one hand, the President had to assure the Congress, public, and experts that Russia would not respond to BMD by either "lashing out" or building more offensive rockets to overwhelm the American defenses. On the other hand, Bush was faced with a rhetorical situation in which he had to persuade Russian leaders that American missile defenses were not aimed at negating Russia's strategic deterrent.

ARTICLE 3:    International Law of Interpretation: An Ambiguous Response to Ambiguity by Dražen Pehar, (1967): PhD: 'Language, Power, Law: Groundwork for the Theory of Diplomatic Ambiguity' (SPIRE/Institute of Law, Politics, and Justice, Keele University, UK); obtained, with summa cum laude, his Master in Diplomacy from the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, Malta, where in 2000 and 2001 he guest-lectured in 'language and diplomacy' for the DiploFoundation post-graduate courses, and assisted in creation of the 'language and diplomacy' web-site (see www.diplomacy.edu/language). B.A. in philosophy and classical Greek with literature from the Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb (Republic of Croatia).

ARTICLE 4:    THE CASE FOR THE COALITION: The Case for the Coalition: An Ideographic Analysis of Bush's Approach to the Iraq by Joseph M. Valenzano III, Joseph M. Valenzano III is Assistant Professor-in-Residence at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. His research interests include rhetoric, terrorism, and the American presidency. His work has been published in the Atlanta Review of Journalism History, Critical Studies in Argumentation, and the Journal of Language and Politics.This essay is submitted for review to The Journal of Diplomatic Language. An earlier version of this paper received Top Paper honors in the Argumentation and Forensics Division at the 2004 National Communication Conference in Chicago, Illinois.

ARTICLE 5:    Introducing Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis Methodology for Analyzing Caribbean Social Problems: Going Beyond Social Practices by Lloyd Waller, Ph.D. student at University of Waikato, New Zealand and Assistant Lecturer at the University of the West Indies (Mona) in Methodology. Other areas of interest/research include ICT for Development, Project Management, Small Business Entrepreneurship and Electronic Governance. Lloyd seeks to advance the development and utilization of relevant research methodologies and analytical tools to analyze and/or promote the use of appropriate information and communication technologies for the development of business, government and society in the Caribbean region.

ARTICLE 6:    On the Problematic Definition of Terrorism by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, Department of Economics, The University of the West Indies, Mona; and C. Daniel Vencill, Professor of Economics, Former Director, Criminal Justice Program, San Francisco State University.

ARTICLE 7:    Dialogue with the Devil? Bin Laden and the rhetorical construction of a strategic persona. by Nis Leerskov Mathiesen. Mr. Mathiesen is studying for a Cand. Mag. in Rhetoric at the University of Copenhagen from where he holds a BA in Rhetoric. He is currently studying for his MA in Intelligence and International Security at King's College, Department of War Studies.

ARTICLE 8:    "We have no choice": The shift in the discourse on the Caribbean's joining the FTAA by Diana Thorburn. Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona. An earlier version of this paper was presented for the panel on "Globalization in the 21st Century Caribbean: Contemporary Perspectives and Debates" of the Caribbean Studies Association 29th Annual Conference, 31 May - 3 June 2004, Frigate Bay, St. Kitts.

Last Update: March 14, 2009