|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
075563
|
|
Empire
/ Colas, Alejandro
|
2007
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, Polity Press, 2007.
|
| Description |
x, 233p.
|
| Standard Number |
0745632521
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052051 | 325.3209073/COL 052051 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
111591
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This intervention argues that Bromley's account of American power underplays some of the structural weaknesses in the US-made liberal order. These weaknesses are not principally the result of relative economic decline, but chiefly the product of a political insistence among US ruling classes in getting their own way (that is, for the immediate American interests to prevail) regardless of their longer-term socio-economic or political consequences. It is the quest for American primacy, not the pursuit of a liberal international order that is the chief driver of US external relations. Likewise it is the more volatile dynamics of class antagonism and alliances both within and outside the USA-not the rational calculation of states as Bromley suggests-that tend to determine the success or failure of American primacy. I flesh out these claims by looking successively at the ideology of post-war American Empire, the contradictions of its actual implementation and the forms of socio-economic and political instability it generates. Bromley's sanguine view of the future of liberal order, it is argued, is only persuasive with a very narrow, inter-statist conception of world order and one which therefore underestimates the social origins of geopolitical disorder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
051658
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 2003.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The notion of democracy has been invoked in the past decade by both opponents and proponents of global governance. Many in the so-called 'anti-globalisation' movement have underlined the inherently unaccountable, opaque and unrepresentative nature of global governance, whilst those more sympathetic to the pluralising dynamics of the phenomenon have emphasised the potentially democratic aspects of this new form of rule, especially with reference to the incorporation of a putative 'global civil society' into the structures of global governance and the accompanying diversification of sources of international political authority. Yet both critics and advocates also tend to agree that there are two basic challenges to (on some accounts, causes of) global governance: the global capitalist market and the concomitant system of sovereign states. The disjunctures generated by the operation of these two structures of power, so both liberal defenders of global governance and their radical, anti-capitalist contenders argue, have created the conditions for decentralised, multilateral mechanisms of socioeconomic and political management of world affairs, that is, 'global governance'. It therefore seems that the question on both sides of this divide, is not so much whether to do away with transnational, multilateral forms of political authority altogether (although that is certainly one aim in some quarters of the anti-globalisation movement) but rather, how to render these democratic, that is, how to democratise global governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
103752
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
107557
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Fred Halliday's life and work were intimately associated with the theory and practice of internationalism. In his later writings, the notion of 'complex solidarity' emerges as a key component of Halliday's worldview. This article explores the conceptual interconnections between different historical expressions of internationalism, cosmopolitanism and solidarity. It considers the intricate relationship between these categories and their place in our understanding of international affairs, emphasizing the divergence between liberal and revolutionary conceptions of internationalism and cosmopolitanism. The article discusses diverse understandings of 'solidarity' in International Relations, arguing that beyond the cosmopolitan and communitarian approaches, there exist other 'Grotian' and 'republican' ideas of solidarity. Halliday drew on these to present his own defence of universal human rights and solidarity, arguably developing a distinctive brand of republican internationalism. The latter part of the article gives content to 'complex solidarity' by suggesting it is built on three inter-related components: a methodological internationalism, an egalitarian reciprocity and a critique of global capitalism. Overall, these guiding features of complex solidarity deliver a unique rendition of internationalism which reflect Halliday's eclectic combination of radical liberalism with a residual historical materialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
103747
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article argues for a Marxist geopolitics that moves beyond both critical geopolitics and the discredited classical geopolitics. It underlines the valorisation of territory by capital across three levels of abstraction: that of social infrastructure, class conflict and ground-rent proper. The recent Russian-Ukrainian gas wars are briefly analysed by way of illustrating the application of this distinctive approach to geopolitics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
067522
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2006.
|
| Description |
ix, 203p.
|
| Contents |
B
|
| Standard Number |
0415354250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 050581 | 327.973009051/COL 050581 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|