| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
101530
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Sage Publication, 2010.
|
| Description |
4 Vol. Set.; p.
|
| Series |
Sage library of international relations
|
| Contents |
Vol. 1: The foundations of the American tradition
Vol. 2: The traditions of great power
Vol. 3: Anti-American tradition
Vol. 4: Regional and national varieties of anti-Americanism
|
| Standard Number |
9781847872715, hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:4/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055564 | 327.73/OCO 055564 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 055565 | 327.73/OCO 055565 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 055566 | 327.73/OCO 055566 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 055567 | 327.73/OCO 055567 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
099444
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why did Australia fight in Iraq, while Canada did not? In this paired comparison, we go beyond explanations centered on the role of leaders to consider three alternative factors-ruling party opinion, public opinion and strategic culture. We argue that in both countries the Iraq decision followed the dominant views within the ruling party as well as the dominant strategic culture among the elites. As for the public opinion, its impact was significant in Canada, especially concerning the province of Quebec, while in Australia its impact was mostly neutral. This type of explanation, we suggest, is not only more historically grounded, but it can also illuminate broader patterns of Australian and Canadian foreign policy behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
191827
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The AUKUS agreement to facilitate Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines has been described by its critics as a ‘bet' on the U.S. This bet entails serious risks for Australia. These risks include uncertainty around construction of the submarines; uncertainty around the U.S.'s long-term commitment to the region; and uncertainty about the future political trajectory of the U.S. These risks are compounded by the sovereignty-constraining implications of AUKUS. The reliance on U.S. technical expertise, and the demands of military interoperability, will bind Australian defence policy more closely to the U.S. than ever. Hence, AUKUS is a deal that demands close scrutiny. This article contributes to such scrutiny, exploring the risks associated with this bet on the U.S. In particular, it examines the ‘America’ that Australian governments expressly want – a liberal internationalist America with a strong commitment to democracy – and then contrasts this with the America that Australia does not want but may well get: an illiberal America that is increasingly anti-democratic at home and crudely transactional, protectionist and undiplomatic abroad. The obvious problem with this approach, we argue, is that Australia does not get to choose the presidential administration in the U.S. over the next twenty to forty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
051982
|
|
|