|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145525
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 1955 Asian-African Conference (Bandung) has been hailed as a turning point in the emergence of the Global South solidarity movement and a pivotal moment in southerners’ collective quest both to liberate themselves from colonialism and to reforge the international order on more inclusive and emancipatory foundations. In this article, the author demonstrates how, in Africa, these aspirations were undermined by nationalist ambitions that privileged self-contained sovereign statehood over potentially more progressive continental solidarity under the Pan-African spirit. The author does so by analysing how the absorption of the Bandung spirit within the Pan-African movement reinforced opportunities for the pursuit of national interests, the affirmation of colonial geographies and economies, and the intensification of forms of solidarities built on the imagined fruits of independence at the expense of a shared history of colonialism. For many African countries, the enduring lessons of the Bandung spirit reside in the challenges of resolving the tensions over the appropriate context for pursuing self-determination and transforming the international order. Thus, while the Bandung spirit delivered the means for newly independent states to engage in international politics through interstate solidarities, it also helped to accelerate the foreclosure of alternative possibilities for intervening in and reshaping the prevailing international order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
178565
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Liberal International Order is in crisis. While the symptoms are clear to many, the deep roots of this crisis remain obscured. We propose that the Liberal International Order is in tension with the older Sovereign Territorial Order, which is founded on territoriality and borders to create group identities, the territorial state, and the modern international system. The Liberal International Order, in contrast, privileges universality at the expense of groups and group rights. A recognition of this fundamental tension makes it possible to see that some crises that were thought to be unconnected have a common cause: the neglect of the coordinating power of borders. We sketch out new research agendas to show how this tension manifests itself in a broad range of phenomena of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
006160
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Boulder, Westview Press, 1995.
|
| Description |
xii,205p.,figures and tables
|
| Standard Number |
0813323568
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 037790 | 337/BRY 037790 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
078523
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
062241
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Aldershot, Ashgate Publishers, 2004.
|
| Description |
xx, 226p.
|
| Series |
Law, justice and power
|
| Standard Number |
0754622886
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 049690 | 342.0873/FIT 049690 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
127843
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Globalisation as a phenomenon has subsumed several multi-layered and complex social processes that have been simultaneously at work, especially, after the end of the Cold War in 1991. While analysing the bilateral as well as multilateral interactions among the contemporary nation states, in the context of globalisation, this article sheds light on the existential stresses and strains that contemporary nation states, developed as well as developing, have been constrained to encounter owing to the rise of transnational actors as well as sub-national/secessionist forces. In the process, it revisits concepts such as capitalism, the nation state, hegemony, in Gramscian sense and imperialism while recasting them under changing circumstances of world politics. It argues that, despite diverse existential challenges, the nation state has proved remarkably resilient. It continues to survive as the primary de jure anchor/actor that provides major communication channels to work out projects of cooperation/coalitions, including alliances and treaties. Hence, it is the most reliable entity towards management and even resolution of issues of global concerns as also intra- and inter-state conflicts in contemporary world politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
080077
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
124332
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The outlook for the world's development has become ever less predictable over the past decades. In the 1980s, practically no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet system of unions, and then of the USSR itself. True, in retrospect one may easily point to the symptoms that had indicated this sort of outcome was very likely, but it is well-known that it is far easier to explain retroactively accomplished events than to identify their probability in good time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
068129
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
080981
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent formal and empirical research in political science and economics strongly indicates that various forms of political and social polarization increase the risk of violent conflict within and between nation states. The articles collected for this issue explore this crucial relationship and provide answers to a variety of topics: First, contributors address how institutions and other contingent factors mediate the conflict potential in polarized societies. Second, this special issue compares the explanatory power of income polarization with traditional and new measures of inequality. Third, the contributions examine how groups form and coalitions are built in polarized societies and how this affects political decision-making. Finally, the special issue analyses the interconnections between interstate war, internationalized conflict and polarization. This introduction synthesizes the literatures that have been developed on the issue of polarization and conflict in the various social scientific disciplines. The authors particularly discuss the similarities between economic models of conflict and the so-called crisis bargaining literature which has been mainly developed within political science. The article shows the differences between `polarization' and `inequality' and introduces the various measures of diversity that have been used in the study of interstate and intrastate conflict during the past few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
005637
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, VERSO, 1995.
|
| Description |
xv, 359p.
|
| Standard Number |
1859840205
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 036936 | 321.86/THO 036936 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
116579
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How can we conceive of global studies of culture and power without (i) overlooking the parameters of the nation state as a forceful axis of power, (ii) prioritising the West as the fount of energised political directives and (iii) reinforcing neo-liberal assumptions on culture and subjectivities? With a reappraisal of theories of globalisation, I elaborate on a transverse politics for transnational studies. I suggest that the national need be foregrounded in any appraisal of the power-laden axes in the co-constitution of the local and the global. Too often, the 'national' is all too easily contracted into the 'local'. I also revisit earlier works to propose multi-sited, engaged and transversal studies that do not simply follow and track global flows but question and undermine their hegemonic trails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|