| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
018264
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 2000.
|
| Description |
885-895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
062965
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
018326
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 2000.
|
| Description |
54-77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
052885
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
017984
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2000.
|
| Description |
443-548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
064102
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
063585
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
May-Jun 1985.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
063166
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
063550
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
063619
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
002814
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Amsterdam, VU University Press, 1992.
|
| Description |
xxxix, 406p.,tables
|
| Standard Number |
9053581037
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 034448 | 355.82/BRA 034448 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
004775
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Royal Institute of international Affairs, 1994.
|
| Description |
v.3 (xiii,194p.)
|
| Series |
Security Challenges for Japan and Europe in a post Cold War Period
|
| Standard Number |
009031741
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035741 | 355.4/TAY 035741 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
068899
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
052839
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Autumn-Winter 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
066925
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
102505
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Americans are a major target of international terrorism. Yet, terrorists from some countries are much more likely to attack American citizens than terrorists from other countries. Similarly, anti-American terrorism from a specific foreign country is much more prevalent during certain periods than others. This article develops a rational theory of international terrorism, which argues that attacking foreign nationals is of strategic value to terrorists even if they ultimately aim at gaining political influence in their home country. Attacking foreigners is the more attractive to domestic terrorists the more the terrorists' home government depends on military support from the foreign country. Applied to the US case, our theory predicts that more anti-American terrorism emanates from countries that receive more US military aid and arms transfers and in which more American military personnel are stationed, all relative to the country's own military capacity. Estimations from a directed country dyad sample over the period 1978 to 2005 support the predictions of our theory for both terrorist incidents involving Americans and terrorist killings of Americans as dependent variables. These results are robust to a wide range of changes to the empirical research design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
055192
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
085736
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Sweden, SIPRI, 2008.
|
| Description |
57p.
|
| Series |
SIPRI policy paper; no. 21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054091 | 382.9142/BRO 054091 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
063707
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
137417
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 2011 Libyan civil war prompted a reassessment of the normative foundation of the EU's conventional arms export control regime as armaments manufactured in Europe were used by Gaddafi's forces during the war. The EU's foreign policy identity is based, partly, upon a common approach to arms export involving respect for common criteria for export licences. Yet, prior to the civil war, considerable amounts of military equipment had been exported by member states to Libya, notwithstanding grounds for restraint on the basis of several of the criteria. This article traces member states' arms export to Libya during 2005–2010 to explore whether member states favoured restraint or export promotion. It concludes that although aware of the risks of exporting, in a competitive market for military goods, member states sought commercial advantage over restraint, and comprehensively violated export control principles. This casts doubts on assertions of the EU acting as a “normative power”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|