|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
124847
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A generally underappreciated shift in U.S. engagement with the global macroeconomic order, accelerated by the global financial crisis, has complicated managing the dollar as a global currency and placed new, politically unfamiliar constraints on U.S. power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
080505
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Stephen Brooks' Producing Security is a very fine book that advances our understanding of globalization and of the links between economics and national security. In this paper I evaluate favorably and explore the frontiers of the book's chief contributions: its elucidation of the globalization of production, its illustration of the novelty of that phenomenon, and its consideration of the significance of this for world politics. I then raise one basic dissent, challenging the idea that the globalization of production has indeed altered the calculus of conflict - though my claim is not that the argument is wrong, but rather, that it is very considerably oversold. A final section offers some hypotheses on how the processes of globalization more generally may be altering the calculus of conflict for reasons complementary to, but largely distinct from, those emphasized in Producing Security
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
055290
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
138423
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ISMs matter. They reflect underlying philosophical points of departure and are rooted in specific explicit assumptions about how the world works. The very different expectations and conclusions of diverse theories often stem from the fact that those theories were derived from distinct and contrasting paradigmatic roots. To be aware of those foundations is to understand the likely strengths, weaknesses, limitations, controversies, and specific attributes of the various theories. In contemporary international relations (IR) scholarship there is a common claim that we are past paradigms, and many younger scholars are expected to recite this mantra. But making such a claim is a political act, not an intellectual one. It reflects the hegemony of one particular paradigmatic perspective—one with specific analytical building blocks of individualism, materialism, and hyperrationalism—an approach that is a paradigm and one so powerful that it has been described as an “intellectual monoculture.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
081775
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2006.
|
| Description |
v, 361p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780415955119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 053461 | 355.033/KIR 053461 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 053664 | 355.033/KIR 053664 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
083692
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Jonathan Kirshner considers the consequences of globalization for American power and international conflict more generally. He argues that the processes of globalization are affecting the balance of power between states and creating new axes of international conflict. He posits that even though the United States is advantaged by globalization, the process also challenges some of its own interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
179476
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Inthe #rst lecture ofany introduction to international relations class, students are typically
warned ofthe pitiless consequences of anarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
164065
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Scholars from numerous disciplines continue to study, debate, and value Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War. This review essay first explores and elaborates many of the enduring and vital contributions of Thucydides for IR theory. It then assesses and engages three new books, including a major, wide-ranging collection of new essays and a very influential (and deeply flawed) attempt to apply the lessons of that work—one that warns of a “Thucydides Trap” that might unwittingly ensnare the United States and China, resulting in an unwanted and catastrophic war between the two. This review essay argues that, as illustrated by the books under consideration here, contemporary IR scholars would be very well served by taking Thucydides seriously and would benefit from reading and considering his History with great care; at the same time, there are enormous, perilous analytical dangers inherent in attempting to draw conclusions from a superficial reading of The Peloponnesian War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
142284
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States is unrepaired and still vulnerable; Europe is hobbled and encumbered by the patchwork straitjacket of its political economy. The rest of the world, less directly affected by the crisis, is actively searching for something different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
089543
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Concerns have been raised that Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) might be used by governments to advance international political goals, raising red flags about their possible economic and national security consequences. These concerns are overstated. Warnings about national security threats related to foreign investment have been sounded repeatedly throughout history, but they have invariably been false alarms. Although there are novel attributes about SWFs in contemporary world politics, establishing their national security consequences is much more difficult than it might seem. And in those instances where theoretical connections between SWFs and "high politics" can be established, on closer inspection the SWFs appear to be intervening variables - manifestations of other pathologies - rather than the root cause of the postulated problem. The potential geopolitical problems caused by SWFs are the result of shifts in wealth in the international system, and not by the establishment or functioning of wealth funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
110827
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What is the realist position on how to deal with the rise of China? One prominent realist approach, associated with John Mearsheimer, calls for the US to do whatever it can to slow China's rise. However, while this is a realist perspective, it is not the realist perspective. In particular, realist approaches that derive from a classical foundation suggest policies fundamentally different from those favored by Mearsheimer. This article argues that realism should return to some of its classical traditions. It reviews why, from a classical realist perspective, the rise of China must be viewed with alarm, but argues that Mearsheimer's approach - offensive realism - is wrong, and dangerous. Many of these errors are rooted in structuralism; a classical realist approach, which allows for the influence of history and politics, provides greater analytical purchase and wiser policy prescriptions than offensive realism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|