|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
101773
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article draws on Edward Said's notion of 'imaginary geographies' to explore how representations of small island states enabled particular colonial interventions to take place in the Indian Ocean region and to show how these representations are currently being reworked to support development strategies. It examines how particular colonial imaginaries justified and legitimised spatially and temporally extended transactions before focusing on two examples of forced population movements: British colonial policy of forcibly exiling anti-colonial nationalists and political 'undesirables' from other parts of the empire to Seychelles; and the use of islands in the region as strategic military bases, requiring the compulsory relocation of populations. While a colonising legacy pervades contemporary representations of these societies, such depictions are not immutable but can be, and are being, appropriated and reworked through various forms of situated agency. Thus an 'island imaginary' has become an important cultural and economic resource for small island states, most notably in the development of a tourist industry. The key challenge for vulnerable peripheral states is to create new forms of representations that contest and replace tenacious colonialist depictions to provide greater opportunities for sustained development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
052078
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Apr-Jun 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
062323
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2005.
|
| Description |
x, 348p.
|
| Standard Number |
0415332079
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:1
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 049655 | 327/WIL 049655 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
129026
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International relations teeters on the edge of an abyss of irrelevance. As an academic pursuit, it has become disparate and fragmented. Those of us in the discipline have ceased to pursue greater clarity in the way that we understand the world around us. Moreover, we have failed as agents of change; that is, as purveyors of opinion and proposals about a better and fairer world order. As such, we no longer serve our students and those practitioners who seek our advice, or, for those of us who take on policy jobs, to push out the envelope of what is considered acceptable. Global governance offers one potentially compelling way of "saving international relations"- though it is not without its problems. This article outlines how and why. The argument unfolds in three parts. The first outlines why and how IR teeters on the edge of an abyss. The second offers a proposal for moving beyond the fragmentation and atomization that afflicts international relations. We suggest that one way of encouraging reengagement is to return to debating grand questions that used to be the sustenance of IR. The third part argues that global governance-appropriately and specifically framed to make it fit for purpose-offers an opportunity to return to these questions and, in so doing, reinvigorate our fragmented and atomized field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
159201
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to establish the value of looking at global governance from the point of view of those who are governed, thereby making them more visible in a field in which they have often had too little profile. This is a necessary addition to an evolving global governance scholarship that seeks to highlight greater sensitivity to issues of complexity, time, space, continuity, and change. We explore recent advances in the literature emphasizing that, although much has been done to enhance global governance as an analytical endeavor, far more intensive efforts are required to reflect the everyday experiences of the globally governed. Three examples of everyday global governance are provided to illustrate how more meaningful research could be accomplished and the potential payoffs that could result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
184092
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article focuses on the vast number of people who make global governance happen. It probes the role of the unknown people in the “middle” who are largely absent from scholarly gaze: professionals, service teams, and others who act behind the scenes. They are not at the top of public and private organizations (“global governors” in the literature), but they keep the lights on. They accomplish the policy, operational, and support work to move the needle of global governance institutions of all varieties from the local to global. These largely invisible and unheard populations—at least in the scholarly and policy literatures—make global governance work. The “missing middle” is not confined to the everyday contributions of professionals in intergovernmental secretariats because contemporary global governance is not synonymous with international organization, but concerns networked forms of public authority that may or may not include secretariats or states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
112089
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha round is in trouble; but so is the way we talk about the institution and the negotiations. Economists, international lawyers, political scientists, practitioners and pundits alike have locked themselves into a deeply constraining and quite unhelpful way of talking and thinking about the WTO that has little to offer either the round or the Organization. Indeed, the way commentators have chosen to talk about the problems of the round, as well as the options for moving forward, may actually be compounding matters, reinforcing the likelihood that Doha will produce little, that future negotiations will continue to be dramatic and hard to conclude, and that inequitable outcomes will persist. My aim here is to shine a light on the bounded nature of the current debate with a view to agitating for a less constrained and more fruitful conversation about Doha, the WTO and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
158913
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper peers backwards into the history of the multilateral trading system and its development over the past half century as a means of considering what may lie beyond the horizon for the future of global trade governance. Its purpose is to underscore the necessity and urgency for root-and-branch reform of the multilateral trading system. It achieves this by comparing and contrasting the global trading system of 50 years ago with its modern-day equivalent and its likely future counterpart half-a-century hence. In so doing, the paper throws into sharp relief not only the inadequacies of global trade governance today but also the damaging consequences of not fundamentally reforming the system in the near future, with a particular emphasis on the past, present and future development of the world’s poorest and most marginalised countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
106641
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Two distinct literatures have emerged on the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and its likely benefits for developing countries. One is built on the use of computable general and partial equilibrium simulations, while another explores the political economy of the negotiation process to explore the opportunities a concluded round will bring for developing countries. Both literatures generate important insights into the DDA, and both highlight that the deal on offer to developing countries is very weak. However, there has been little engagement between these two bodies of thought. This paper seeks to begin to redress this, fusing a review of the simulations of likely DDA gains with an examination of the passage of the Doha negotiations. It argues that through this process we can arrive at a fuller understanding of how limited, and problematic, the results of the DDA are likely to be for the less developed countries. If the DDA is to deliver on its mandate, a qualitative shift in the negotiations is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
131011
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Global governance remains notoriously slippery. While the term arose to describe change in the late twentieth century, its association with that specific moment has frozen it in time and deprived it of analytical utility. It has become an alternative moniker for international organizations, a descriptor for an increasingly crowded world stage, a call to arms, an attempt to control the pernicious aspects of globalization, and a synonym for world government. This article aims not to advance a theory of global governance but to highlight where core questions encourage us to go. A more rigorous conception should help us understand the nature of the contemporary phenomenon as well as look "backwards" and "forwards." Such an investigation should provide historical insights as well as prescriptive elements to understand the kind of world order that we ought to be seeking and encourage us to investigate how that global governance could be realized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
074322
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2006.
|
| Description |
xvi, 175p.
|
| Standard Number |
041540553X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 051830 | 382.92/WIL 051830 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|