|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080154
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This essay is a revised and expanded version of a paper delivered at the 2006 ISA annual meeting in San Diego, California, March 22-25 that was published in The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations (vol. 7, No. 2, pages 111-127). I would like to thank Robert Gilpin, Alex Mintz, David Blainey, Galia Press Bar-Nathan, Marcia Harpaz, Yael Krispin, Orly Kacowicz, Salomon Bergman, Eytan Meyers, Orit Gal, and the readers and editors at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations for their comments on previous versions of this essay as well as to William Thompson for his comments on this expanded version. I am also grateful for the support of the Leonard Davis Institute for international Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
160062
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper, we examine the perennial problem of peaceful change (how to bring about a change in the status quo by means other than war?) by reflecting on the post-Cold War order from 1991 to 2017. We examine the problem at three different levels of analysis: systemic (great power interactions), interactive (peaceful territorial change), and domestic (democratization efforts). At the interactive level, we assess the record of successes and failures of peaceful territorial changes since 1991 to the present. At the systemic level, we assess the inherent difficulties embedded in systemic peaceful change (the decline of the US hegemony, the rise of China, the revival of Russia?). At the domestic level, we focus upon democratization efforts. In this context, we particularly emphasize the contours of the emerging illiberal international order in keeping peace and the status quo, bringing war, or facilitating the possibility of peaceful change. Finally, we suggest possible links between domestic, interactive, and systemic peaceful change, and suggest an agenda for future research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
065947
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157932
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the possible links between regional governance and global governance from a regional perspective. It presents and develops a typology of linkages that include: (1) irrelevance; (2) conflict; (3) cooperation; and (4) harmonic relations. Moreover, it suggests three alternative explanations to make sense of the linkages as a function of the nature of the issue area of regional and global governance, the role of pivotal states, and the importance of ideational factors and the diffusion of norms. It succinctly refers to the Latin American experience as an illustration of the nexus between regional governance and global governance in a comparative perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
046951
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
|
| Description |
xx, 326p.
|
| Standard Number |
0742501809
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 044170 | 327.172/KAC 044170 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
145065
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article offers a systematic and critical attempt to consider the question of why the discipline of international relations is at something of a loss to deal with the concept of globalization at a theoretical level. The article discusses this theoretical deficit by raising the following questions: How should we cope with globalization from an IR perspective? Why don't we have coherent theories of IR about globalization? What should we do about that? We argue that although there is a theoretical need to theorize globalization in the framework of conventional IR theories, there are serious impediments that preclude us from developing coherent IR theories about globalization, mainly due to the inherent incompatibility between the features of conventional IR theories and the concept and realities of globalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|