|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
096402
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
154569
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In January 2017, China released its first ever White Paper on Asia-Pacific security cooperation, which sought to embolden Beijing’s (littoral) leadership in the region. Highlighting maritime security in the Asia-Pacific as a regional hotspot, the policy paper called for the establishment of a favourable regional order by underlining the merits of cooperative security. Simultaneously, it also sought to entrench China’s sovereign interests by displaying a ‘reactive assertiveness’ in the maritime domain. Referring to the South China Sea (SCS) dispute in particular, the paper declared that while China remained committed to upholding freedom of navigation in the SCS, it would also not shy away from making a “necessary response" to violation of its territorial integrity. Beijing’s desire to enhance its economic and military influence in the maritime domain understandably has an effect on the security calculus of the Asia-Pacific. In response to China's growing military capabilities and assertiveness in international waters, other regional players have also been emboldened or forced to stake territorial claims in the interest of their sovereignty. The consequent insecurity, tension and power play is likely to have a destabilising effect on the region. It is in this context that this paper attempts to analyse China’s maritime security strategy as outlined in the White Paper, on three counts: by analysing threat perceptions from the Chinese perspective, by outlining the need to build a comprehensive maritime security framework that addresses the interests of all stakeholders in the region and, finally, by analysing security implications for India.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
106491
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
105470
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
140821
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Australia, Defence Publishing Service, 2000.
|
| Description |
xii, 80p.pbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 043789 | 355.00994/AUS 043789 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
088111
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
2nd ed
|
| Publication |
Mongolia, Strategic Management and Planning Directorate, MOD, 2001.
|
| Description |
144p.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 045552 | 355.009517/MON 045552 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
086942
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In December 2006 the British government released a White Paper announcing its intention to begin the process of replacing its current Trident nuclear weapons system, thereby allowing it to retain nuclear weapons well into the 2050s. In March 2008 the government released its National Security Strategy that stressed the long-term complexity, diversity and interdependence of threats to British security with a clear focus on human rights, justice and freedom. This article asks how the threat to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people with British nuclear weapons fits into the National Security Strategy's world view and questions the relevance of an instrument of such devastating bluntness to threats defined by complexity and interdependence. It argues that the government's case for replacing the current Trident system based on the logic of nuclear deterrence is flawed. First, Britain faces no strategic nuclear threats and the long-term post-Cold War trend in relations with Russia and China-the two nuclear-armed major powers that could conceivably threaten the UK with nuclear attack-is positive, despite current tensions with Moscow over Georgia. Second, the credibility and legitimacy of threatening nuclear destruction in response to the use of WMD by 'rogue' states is highly questionable and British nuclear threats offer no 'insurance' or guarantee of protection against future 'rogue' nuclear threats. Third, nuclear weapons have no role to play in deterring acts of nuclear terrorism whether state-sponsored or not. Fourth, British nuclear threats will be useless in dealing with complex future conflicts characterized by 'hybrid' wars and diverse and interdependent sources of insecurity. The article concludes by arguing that the government's fall-back position that it must keep nuclear weapons 'just in case' because the future security environment appears so uncertain, makes no sense if British nuclear threats offer no solution to the causes and symptoms of that uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
126767
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
France, Government Publication, 2013.
|
| Description |
135p.Pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9782111384743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057528 | 355.033044/HOL 057528 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
163630
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
131829
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 2013 Australian Defence White Paper categorically termed Australia's zone of strategic interest the Indo-Pacific, the first time any government has defined its region this way. This raises questions about what the Indo-Pacific means, whether it is a coherent strategic system, the provenance of the concept and its implications for Asian security as well as Australian policy. Indo-Pacific Asia can best be understood as an expansive definition of a maritime super-region centred on South-East Asia, arising principally from the emergence of China and India as outward-looking trading states and strategic actors. It is a strategic system insofar as it involves the intersecting interests of key powers such as China, India and the USA, although the Indo-Pacific subregions will retain their own dynamics too. It suits Australia's two-ocean geography and expanding links with Asia, including India. The concept is, however, not limited to an Australian perspective and increasingly reflects US, Indian, Japanese and Indonesian ways of seeing the region. It also reflects China's expanding interests in the Indian Ocean, suggesting that the Chinese debate may shift towards partial acceptance of Indo-Pacific constructs alongside Asia-Pacific and East Asian ones, despite suspicions about its association with the US rebalance to Asia. Questions about Australia's ability to implement an effective Indo-Pacific strategy must account for force posture, alliance ties and defence diplomacy, as well as constraints on force structure and spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
084377
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
162809
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Northern Sea Route (NSR) may become a significant Russian contribution to China's One Belt, One Road project due to the shared interests of Russia and China. Russia definitely needs the NSR much more than any of the potential other participants in Belt and Road. The NSR plays a key role in the development of vast Russian territories that are largely uninhabited but possess tremendous reserves of timber, gas, oil and various other minerals and extensive sea areas with large fish resources. According to some estimates, the NSR connects areas that make up nearly 70% of Russia's territory.1 The NSR also has national security significance that is hard to overestimate. All this makes the NSR a strategic asset for Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
137086
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
India, Ministry of External Affairs, 1954.
|
| Description |
97p.Hbk
|
| Series |
White Paper
|
| Contents |
B
White Paper No.I : 1954 - 1959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| A55816 | 327.54051/IND A55816 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
137071
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
India, Ministry of External Affairs, 1963.
|
| Description |
v.9(vi, 187p.); v.10(vi, 120p.); v.11(iv, 87p.); v.12(vi, 144p.); v.13(iii, 124p.)Hbk
|
| Series |
White Paper
|
| Contents |
B
White paper No. IX : January 1963 - July 1963
White paper No. X : July 1963 - January 1964
White paper No. XI : January 1964 - January 1965
White paper No. XII : January 1965 - February 1966
White paper No. XIII : February 1966 - February 1967
White paper No. XII
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055819 | 327.54051/IND 055819 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
137082
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
India, Ministry of External Affairs, 1960.
|
| Description |
v.5(iv, 161p.); v.6(vi, 281p.); v.7(v, 196p.); v.8(126p.)Hbk
|
| Series |
White Paper
|
| Contents |
B
White Paper No.V : November 1960 - November 1961
White Paper No.V : November 1961 - July 1962
White Paper No.V : July 1962 - October 1962
White Paper No.V : October 1962 - January 1963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055818 | 327.54051/IND 055818 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
137084
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
India, Ministry of External Affairs, 1959.
|
| Description |
v.2(ii, 132p.); v.3(ii, 148p.); v.4(ii, 103p.)Hbk
|
| Series |
White Paper
|
| Contents |
B
White paper No. II : September 1959 - November 1959
White paper No. III : November 1959 - March 1960
White paper No. IV : March 1960 - November 1960
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 055817 | 327.54051/IND 055817 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
150223
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
178199
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Foreign policy statements—and, namely, white papers—offer diplomats, civil servants, and the general public, as well as international actors (friends and foes alike) an understanding of what motivates a country to engage in international issues. They are fundamental government declarations intended to direct the policy process toward its political and operational objectives. Is history embedded in the message these statements carry? And, if so, how is history used? Relying on Brands and Suri’s typology and framing categories (factual/normative), this article explores white papers issued by governments led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin Jr., as well as the 2017 House of Commons statement by Justin Trudeau’s foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland. Based on Canada’s tradition of Pearsonian internationalism, we hypothesize that the factual use of history would prevail. We find this to be the case, but with important nuances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
113311
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article finds that the Australian government's perception of the threat of terrorism continues to be fundamentally flawed. Suggesting that it is imperative to clearly identify the sources and targets of the terrorist threat, the article concludes that terrorism does not pose an existential or even major objective threat to Western liberal democracies like Australia. At the same time, the political and psychological sensibilities surrounding terrorism, in combination with public demands for action, may require democratic governments to respond. Any response, however, needs to be carefully calibrated to meet the requirements of proportionality and (potential) effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
117515
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On 28 June 2012 the long-awaited White Paper on the Overseas Territories subtitled Security, Success and Sustainability was published by the UK government. The White Paper sets out the nature of the existing links between the UK and its 14 Overseas Territories and the measures required to 'renew and strengthen' the relationship. The Coalition government felt-perhaps correctly-that towards the end of the Labour Party's time in power relations with at least some of the Territories were becoming increasingly fractious, and several political and economic problems in the Territories required stronger corrective action. Thus, the White Paper attempts a balance between promoting a more positive overall agenda while making clear the responsibilities and high standards of governance the Territories must maintain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|