|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
076263
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006.
|
| Description |
xvi, 247p.
|
| Series |
Global security in changing world
|
| Standard Number |
9780754647737
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052265 | 327.1/MAC 052265 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
189878
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Post–World War II thinking about security, prosperity, and development emphasized macro-level explanations, applied across widely varied temporal and spatial scales. Western scholars of International Relations (IR) were preoccupied with questions of strategic balance and world order, typically focusing on possibilities for war and peace through one of two lenses, Realist or Idealist. Similarly, challenges of prosperity and development were understood in competing “modernization” or “dependency” terms, where “underdevelopment” was seen as the product of either “backward” states or an exploitative world system. In almost every case, the unit of analysis was the sovereign state operating in an anarchical inter-state (or international) system. Over time, many came to perceive these dominant explanations of (dis)order not only as deficient analytically but harmful in practice. Put differently, the actual course of world events rarely, if ever, matched the outcomes expected by the theorists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134660
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article revisits our 1993 field analysis of the theoretical condition of Canadian foreign policy (CFP) literature, which was in turn a response to Maureen Molot's 1990 argument that said literature had “been captured by its own preoccupations and ha[d], therefore, remained highly descriptive.” In our analysis, we found the field to be marked by promising yet exceptional and arrested theoretical openings and a lack of cumulation, broadly understood. We are struck today by the degree to which our core assessment still holds. In this article, we return to the arguments advanced in 1993 as the foundation for evaluating some key theoretical developments in the intervening years. We focus on the “critical turn” in CFP, the contributions of feminist scholars, and the rise of mainstream social science or “problem-solving” approaches, which we see as the most explicitly and self-consciously “theorized” approaches within the field. We conclude by looking afresh at the question of cumulation and reflecting on the fluidity of who and what constitutes the field today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|