| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
150211
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
120203
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper analyzes the current and prospective implications of Asia's energy consumption revolution for regional stability. Adopting a comparative and historical approach, I argue that Japanese energy security anxieties worked to reinforce regional alignment patterns in East Asia for nearly two decades following the Shanghai communiqué, thereby strengthening regional stability. Conversely, the post-Cold War period has seen in China and India's rise the emergence of Asian energy super-consumers that are not formally aligned with the United States, but that are increasingly dependent on imported energy supplies to fuel their industrialization. This newfound dependence on energy imports has seen both countries follow Japan's longstanding example in securitizing energy as a policy issue. In the context of an already more contested Asia, this trend towards energy securitization has aggravated regional tensions and will continue to do so unless greater efforts are undertaken bilaterally, regionally and globally to foster more effective forms of energy cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
138125
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Australia has a vital interest in preventing the Indian Ocean Region from becoming an arena of great power rivalry, including between India and China. The 2013 Defence White Paper clearly delineates the Indo-Pacific as an area of supreme importance to Australia. Developing a close strategic partnership with India is an important part of this strategy. However, there is a fundamental disconnect between Australian and Indian perceptions of the Indo-Pacific: on balance, Australia prefers to avoid being part of any formulation that could be seen as attempting to contain China and prefers an inclusive framework; by contrast, mainstream thinking in India has opposed the inclusion of China and is anxious about the growing visibility of China in the Indian Ocean Region. This means that Australia finds itself stuck in a cleft stick in managing China’s and India’s different views of the Indo-Pacific. This divergence in views leads to the potential for misunderstanding and conflict between Australian and Indian views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
170852
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
192488
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Franco-Russian great power rivalry is a powerful security dynamic
shaping the Sahara-Sahel region that was formed in the last decade due to transnational (in)security processes, namely, the transnational terrorism-
migration-crime nexus. The confrontation between Paris and Moscow,
which commenced at the end of last decade, is largely a consequence
of the weaknesses and inefficiency of the French foreign policy in the
region, which Russia strives to exploit to its political and economic benefit.
The hotspots of this confrontation are Libya and Mali, where the Franco-
Russian rivalry has led to the global securitization of the conflict (in both
countries), transformation of the regional balance of power (in Libya), and
the aggravation of existing security problems (in Mali). Overall, the Franco-
Russian rivalry in the Sahara-Sahel region is a phenomenon of the upcoming
age of multipolarity and a new Scramble for Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
182293
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
175694
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines how buffer status or geographic location between two rival great powers, namely Imperial Britain and Russia, affected Iran’s survival chances from 1860 to 1914. By unpacking survival status into juridical sovereignty and domestic state autonomy, and systematically tracing the dynamics of rivalry between Britain and Russia over Iran, this paper demonstrates that buffer status contributed to the preservation of Iran’s juridical sovereignty while constraining its domestic state autonomy. In essence, it argues that due to the divergent preferences of rival great powers and the shifting balance of power between them, buffer status left Iran juridically sovereign but empirically non-sovereign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
184964
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
177732
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As Russia-West relations hit a post-Cold War low and a sterner Western approach toward China has become more manifest, great power rivalry appears to have returned. It is often assumed that these developments will have important consequences for the durability of the so-called ‘liberal international order’. This paper seeks to clarify precisely what the liberal international order is and how it relates to English School understandings of international society and international order. First will come an analysis of these concepts as they are currently understood in recent literature, with the aim of providing a more wide-reaching framework for understanding hegemony and liberal order in today’s world. Then, the paper will turn to Russian and Chinese perspectives on the liberal order and the extent to which Moscow and Beijing are challenging it. Finally, it will discuss the implications that all of this holds for the conceptual relationship between international society and international order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
150837
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
170499
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oxon, Routledge, 2019.
|
| Description |
ix, 222p.: figureshbk
|
| Series |
Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies Series; 2
|
| Standard Number |
9781138624245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059818 | 359.03/ROW 059818 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
190504
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2023.
|
| Description |
xxii, 1158p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9780691204383
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 060372 | 355.4/BRA 060372 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
121417
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
During the Second World War, the American State Department prepared a Korean trusteeship plan with a view to mitigate Great Power rivalry over Korea after Japanese defeat. To achieve this goal, the Department recommended that American leaders consult with Russian leaders to manage the joint trusteeship whilst maintaining the administrative unity of Korea. However, amid a sharp rise of threat perception over Soviet expansion and the expectation of the development of an atomic bomb, the Truman Administration delayed diplomatic consultations with the Russians after April 1945. Furthermore, due to a lack of proper co-ordination in Washington's bureaucracy, a valuable opportunity for diplomatic compromise on Korean trusteeship was missed when Harry Hopkins visited Moscow in late May 1945. Although the Potsdam Conference offered the final opportunity for compromise, James Byrnes chose to pursue a unilateralist policy to secure a separate zone of occupation below the 38th parallel with Truman's full support. This article examines American decision-making and diplomacy whilst taking into account its leaders' threat perception as well as their confidence derived from the atomic monopoly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
191101
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Japan, NIDS, 2023.
|
| Description |
iv, 219p.pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9784864821193
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:1,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location | IssuedTo | DueOn |
| 060406 | 327.1/MAS 060406 | Main | Issued | General | | RF171 | 23-Feb-2024 |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
065805
|
|
|