| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
007329
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
June 1994.
|
| Description |
31-41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
011381
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 1997.
|
| Description |
395-429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
072789
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Now that the bilateral perspective of the missile defence issue has become obsolete, its multinational character has more clearly come to the surface. The analyses of this Special Issue deal with the domestic politics of missile defence policy in 16 democratic countries. Among the nine key findings developed here are: the termination of the ABM Treaty has been grudgingly accepted, or cautiously welcomed, with greatest resentments alive in Russia; the United States' territorial shield has strong supporters, but is not broadly legitimized; almost all democracies share a consensus on Theatre Missile Defence for protection of expeditionary forces; the United States is the dominant power structuring the entire missile defence area, although America with all its influence is a necessary albeit not a sufficient factor in explaining the missile defence policies of other democracies. The contributors add three major explanatory factors: the broad foreign policy orientation or political culture, domestic politics and structure, and to a lesser extent the threat perception of the individual democracies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
007122
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
April-June 2000.
|
| Description |
227-242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
072806
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The issue of theatre-range missile defence is approached by the Netherlands' government primarily as an issue of 'technical' adaptation of defensive capabilities against potential or already existing threats, made possible by new technologies. This approach is generally shared by parties and interest groups across the political spectrum, and this helps to explain why the issue is not controversial beyond the small circle of those who are involved in arms acquisition processes and setting priorities within the available budgets. As long as decisions in this area can be successfully framed as merely a consequence of established general policies, they can also be depoliticized. The interest of the military in this area stems from the strong desire to remain a reliable junior partner of the United States, and the decision to be one of the few countries in Europe to acquire Patriot PAC-3 systems should be seen in this light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
013105
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
June-Sept 1997.
|
| Description |
35-40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
022393
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
July-Aug 2002.
|
| Description |
15-19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
072812
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In explaining Turkish missile defence policy-making, old theoretical stand-bys like regime type and the Military-Industrial Complex fall short. They leave unexplained major questions such as why the issue of missile defence has not been debated on the same scale compared with many other security issues, and why the issues of Theatre Missile Defence and National Missile Defense have been perceived very differently. The acquisition of a TMD system is seen as a legitimate Turkish priority, whereas the American NMD project has led to scepticism, both publicly and officially. It is concluded that post-Cold War geopolitical factors, as well as security perceptions, foreign and defence policy culture, and military alliance relations all play an important role in Turkish missile defence policy-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
013339
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 1998.
|
| Description |
1455-66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|