| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
060944
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
105852
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Affect exists among close allies and influences their actions and reactions vis-Ã -vis each other. These countries' perceptions of, and affective attachment to, the specialness of their relationships explains why, in certain circumstances, big clashes occur among them. In this sense, affect explains why crises among close allies are more signals of strength than weakness: the passionate nature of such crises-as opposed to more routine or recurrent disagreements-is triggered by the high value placed by close allies on their ties and not, as often stated in the literature, by the erosion of these ties. After developing this argument, I illustrate it with the analysis of two crises among close allies: the Suez crisis between Britain and the United States in late 1956, and the Iraq crisis between France and the United States in early 2003. I then contrast these episodes with a crisis between two allies with a much less affectively charged relationship-the United States and Turkey, also in early 2003 over the Iraq War issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
088478
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
At first glance, Europe's discord over the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a foreign policy debacle. And when a majority of Member States publicly broke ranks with a tenuously reached common position, skeptics argued that the EU's consultative and consensus-based process of foreign policy making was either fictitious or irrevocably broken. But in fact, the Iraq crisis triggered a normative reframing of security and defense policy and renewed a commitment to consensus decision making. Rather than a lowest common denominator outcome, a compromise position was reached in the form of EU-coordinated economic and humanitarian assistance to rebuilding Iraq that has exceeded 200 million euros per year since 2004. This was possible because normative commitments to develop the EU as a global actor and to promote democracy and the rule of law worldwide legitimated EU action and constrained Member States with 'do nothing' and/or 'let the UN do it' preferences. The foreign ministers' ability to reach agreement on coordinated recon aid to Iraq also displays the Union's principled commitment to make decisions in a norm-governed and consensus-based institutional environment of cooperative bargaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
123885
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the aftermath of the ruptures caused by the Iraq crisis, European states agreed in December 2003 on both a European Security Strategy and an EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Ten years have passed since this attempt to kick-start common European policies on WMD proliferation. How well have EU policies performed in this area? Has a specifically European way of dealing with proliferation challenges emerged?
This article traces the development of EU policies on WMD proliferation since 2003 by examining, in particular, European reactions to the nuclear crisis in Iran, as well as European interactions with the international non-proliferation regime and the cooperation with partner countries. The article concludes that the EU has performed much better than might have been expected in an area that has traditionally been one of the fiercely guarded prerogatives of national security policies.
The EU's good performance is very much related to institutional flexibility, as exemplified by the EU/E3 approach to Iran, and to a high degree of political pragmatism. However, important shortcomings remain, most notably the lack of coordination between national and European non-proliferation efforts. In other words, the EU has not in the last 10 years turned into a fully fledged non-proliferation actor that can deliver tangible results in any area of proliferation concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
055095
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
052040
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
066424
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Zed Books, 2005.
|
| Description |
xix, 266p.pbk
|
| Standard Number |
1842774719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 050267 | 956.95044/GEO 050267 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
102952
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
057428
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
056171
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
105352
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This exploratory article argues that the mobilisation process for the war in Iraq has revealed and exacerbated the fault lines across American society and brought on a crisis in army-society relationships in the US to which the state has ultimately responded by announcing it would withdraw troops from Iraq. To explore these tensions, I present the analytical framework of "American imperial society" as an alternative problematisation of 'empire' and hope to show its utility to highlight how the repercussions of the US's political ambitions abroad are felt far beyond the battlefield. In doing so, it also provides the first account of empire which builds on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. I finally explore these questions by looking at the debate taking place over the meaning and legitimacy of American military sacrifice in three major American newspapers and two magazines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|