| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
088724
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
154633
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Canada is home to a large and diverse community of academic experts on various aspects of international politics, but only a small subset of these scholars is actively engaged with Canadian Foreign Policy per se, and even fewer think of themselves as specialists working in Canadian Foreign Policy (CFP) as an academic subfield. This is strikingly different from the way things were during the Cold War years, when most Canadian scholars working on international affairs recognized an obligation to relate their work to Canadian Foreign Policy debates, and many thought of themselves as CFP specialists. Some would welcome these post-Cold War developments, as an indication that Canadian scholarship is now less parochial and more “worldly” than it once was. But we should be concerned about the apparent unravelling of CFP as an academic project, because without that project we lose decades’ worth of shared insights and concepts and the broader perspective gained over time and across issue areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
080380
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
097058
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
088731
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
146497
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The study of Canada–United States relations has a long, rich history as an interdisciplinary project, closely engaged with contemporary policy debates, and well integrated in the teaching curricula at Canadian universities. As the two societies become ever more tightly enmeshed—economically, demographically, culturally, and even politically—and the two states’ diplomatic relationship becomes ever more complex, the study of that relationship can and should become more reflective, purposive, and coherent. Having reviewed recent historiographical developments, in which the field’s three core debates have been taken in important new directions, we are hopeful about the prospects for renewal and reinvention. The challenge for students of Canada–US relations today, we maintain, is therefore to continue to unearth insights from the original great debates but also to challenge and revise the broader debates themselves to develop a more robust understanding of the relationship past, present, and future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|