|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
085900
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The small state has so far escaped a consensus definition because 'the' small state has in fact been conceived of very differently. Different studies of 'the' small state have characterized it quite distinctly. In fact, there is substantial disagreement even over what type of criteria, quantifiable or qualitative, are most appropriate to characterize the small state. However, I argue that such fundamental disagreement over what makes a state small has actually benefited the area of small states studies by providing it with conceptual flexibility to match different research designs as well as the quite substantial variations among actual small states in the world. In short, in the discipline of international relations as well as in reality, more than one definition of the small state does and should exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085902
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The purpose of this paper is to redress the relative shortage of small power studies, expand the theoretical understanding pertaining to this peculiar type of states and reassert the term 'small power' in the relevant literature. The field of international relations (IR) that is devoted to small powers is limited, at least when compared to the material available for larger powers, as small powers were seemingly neglected during the Cold War era. However, small powers today have increased in numbers, as has their impact on the international system; hence, it is imperative that all pertinent definitions and attributes of small powers are examined in order to challenge the consistency and credibility of the term 'small state' over 'small power', as different connotations apply in either case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
061565
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
'Globalization' was the Zeitgeist of the 1990s. In the social sciences, it gave rise to the claim that deepening interconnectedness was fundamentally transforming the nature of human society, and was replacing the sovereign state system with a multi-layered, multilateral system of 'global governance'. A decade later, however, these expectations appear already falsified by the course of world affairs. The idea of 'globalization' no longer captures the 'spirit of the times': the 'age of globalization' is unexpectedly over. Why has this happened? This article argues that 'Globalization Theory' always suffered from basic flaws: as a general social theory; as a historical sociological argument about the nature of modern international relations; and as a guide to the interpretation of empirical events. However, it also offers an alternative, 'conjunctural analysis' of the 1990s, in order both to explain the rise and fall of 'globalization' itself, and to illustrate the enduring potential for International Relations of those classical approaches which Globalization Theory had sought to displace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
085899
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper inquires as to how the internationalization of politics, society and the economy has affected the liberal-democratic foundations of European nation-states. 'Europeanization', the rise of global firms as powerful political actors, international migration within and towards Europe, international terrorism and organized crime as well as the state's responses to these challenges, and the surge of right-wing radicalism and populism are identified as the major forces that tend to put both the democratic and the liberal components of liberal democracies under pressure. Future research should devote more attention to studying the factors determining the extent to which different European countries are affected by the dynamics of internationalization and the relationship between different internationalization-related challenges. Moreover, politics as an academic discipline should be more ambitious about providing some normative guidance to coping with internationalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
085903
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On the same day (1 May 2003) that President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' in Iraq; in an announcement considered as 'marking a major victory in America's ongoing war on terror' by the Fox News, his Secretary of Defence declared that 'the major combat activity' had ended in Afghanistan. More than 5 years later, however, victory in Afghanistan seems as elusive as in Iraq. The Taliban have re-emerged as a formidable fighting force and are going from strength to strength, despite the involvement of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and more than quadruple increase in the number of foreign troops. What went wrong and how were the Taliban able to survive and pose a serious challenge to the United States and NATO? The aim of this paper is to provide an outline of the important factors for the rise of insurgency, from the initial mistakes made to the interference by Pakistan; weaknesses of the Karzai government and its national army and police; the question of legitimacy and offences to traditional and religious values and beliefs; and finally the Allied Forces and NATO troops becoming part of the problem, incapable of solving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|