|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
160387
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia’s “eastward pivot” has intensified, mainly observable as strengthened relations with China, which appear to be evolving into a quasi-alliance. This places in question Russian attempts at diversification in the Asia-Pacific, and its position in Central Asia, where China’s Belt and Road Initiative challenges Russian influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
192956
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Sino-Russian strategic partnership, among its many facets, includes broad alignment in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on issues of intervention, and their similar (if not identical) stances on the controversial Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in regard to Darfur, Libya, or Syria are well known—but the Libyan R2P-inspired enforcement action (intervention absent the consent of the host state) is relatively rare. Less work has been carried out on Russian and Chinese discourse on UN peacekeeping, viz consent-based operations. We fill a gap by examining and comparing their discourse on UN peacekeeping in UN Security Council meetings, demonstrating that their converging views have begun to seep into the previously 'safe space' of peacekeeping. The controversy surrounding the 'protection of civilians' encapsulated in the Libyan resolution 1973, which was used for regime change, caused concern for Russia and China. New directions in UN peacekeeping—in particular, stabilization missions—which emphasize the protection of civilians, are testing UN peacekeeping doctrine. A comparison of Chinese and Russian voting patterns in the UNSC reveals a fairly similar line taken on voting to extend peacekeeping mandates, yet upon examining the discourse in UNSC meetings regarding three UN stabilization missions between 2011 and 2022, as well as more generic meetings on peacekeeping, subtle differences emerge, which reflect differences in Russian and Chinese narrated global identities and status concerns. These differences show that alignment is based more on converging interests than converging values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
112154
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Russian Far East has, since Gorbachev, been used in foreign-policy discourse as a tool to access the integrative processes of the Asia-Pacific. However, vulnerability, symbolised by the border with China and the asymmetry of the Sino-Russian economic relationship, highlights the geopolitical andgeoeconomic implications of engagement with the Asia-Pacific. The 'modernisation' agenda, which became a leitmotiv of the Medvedev administration, focused attention on the challenges ofdevelopment in this region, but development within this agenda tends to be based on the most optimistic scenarios, and development plans for the border areas are heavily geared towards China. Integration with the Asia-Pacific is often advocated as a means of escaping economic dependence on China, but approaches and strategies remain overly politicised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
081045
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2007.
|
| Description |
x, 228p.
|
| Series |
BASEES/Routledge series on Russian and East European studies
|
| Standard Number |
9780415305785
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 053147 | 327.47051/KUH 053147 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|