| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
167739
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2011, the U.S. Obama Administration officially put forward a geopolitical initiative that went down in history under the name of "pivot," or rebalance. A major element of that strategy, which was intended to guarantee U.S.A.'s dominant position in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), became the building of constructive relations with China. This paper attempts to show how the Chinese vector of the pivot occurred and developed. Our analysis has yielded a conclusion about the changes that the pivot has undergone with the replacement of the U.S. administrations and also prompted a question about the efficiency of this strategy in terms of carrying out the objectives set by the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
141940
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION in the APR has come close to fundamental qualitative changes launched by the emerging mechanisms of multi-sided integration in trade and economies. In November 2014, in Beijing the APEC summit discussed a future Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on the basis of ASEAN and its partners, and a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lobbied by the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
093637
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We examine the main stages of the formation of the PRC's foreign policy from the moment the People's Republic of China was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, Beijing's current foreign policy doctrine and contemporary concepts in the area of foreign policy, the PRC's position on issues of guaranteeing international security, China's foreign policy priorities, and its relations with the leading world powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
106113
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
107912
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
104246
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE YEAR 2010 has become history. The Asia-Pacific Region (APR) which stretches from Iran to Japan and the South Pacific islands used it to leave the global financial and economic crisis behind; move to dynamic development; acquire and strengthen new poles of growth and influence and push forward multisided cooperation.
Much of what was going on there, however, caused concern: repeated flare-ups of old disagreements and conflicts; the challenges and threats of the last few decades as well as the still very much obvious gap between the development levels of some of the states and sub-regions. In other words, very much as before the region scored up impressive achievements and was still grappling with numerous unresolved problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
091768
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The transition of power to a new administration in the United States demands that Washington more clearly articulate its strategy in a changing international situation. One of the key theatres of U.S. global strategy, it would seem, is the Asia-Pacific Region. Recent works by American political scientists allow us to speculate that the White House will follow a more balanced policy in its relations with such East Asian economic powers as China, Japan, South Korea, and the ASEAN countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
104280
|
|
|