| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
107432
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE DRAMATIC RISE OF CHINA AND INDIA AMONG OTHERS HAS SET THE STAGE
for a fundamental rethinking of world politics in an age of the waning dominance of US power as a force for remaking the world in its own image. While
Pax Americana is not yet teetering on the edge of collapse, the consensus opinion is that the relative decline of the United States is probably irreversible and
its unipolar moment will soon give way to something new. A “return to multipolarity” is one way of describing this shift. It tells us that several great powers will emerge to challenge US primacy. That is all. The more important
question is: What sort of global order will emerge on the other side of the transition from unipolarity to multipolarity? Will it be one of peace and plenty or
conflict and scarcity? On this issue, experts are divided into two camps, pessimists and optimists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
141409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Observances last year of the one hundredth anniversary of the Great War, as it was known until a second global conflict gave it a roman numeral, have paid deference to its status as the most brutal conflict in human existence as well as one whose influence we still live with today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
186922
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
140453
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
1st Indian ed.
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Pentagon Press, 2015.
|
| Description |
ix, 217p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9788182748286
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058281 | 940.3510973/COK 058281 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
170987
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International commissions played an important but overlooked role in Great Power diplomacy during the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913. In establishing the new state of Albania, they served as tools of preventive diplomacy that enabled the Great Powers to avoid a disastrous direct confrontation. This analysis examines the use of such commissions and argues that although they succeeded in preventing Great Power conflict in the short-term, their instrumental use opened new avenues of tension amongst the Great Powers and came at the expense of the national principle. The exegesis highlights how the use of commissions developed in the context of situations of malleable sovereignty that occurred in the wake of the receding Ottoman Empire and suggests that understanding the Great Power commissions of the Balkan Wars can help illuminate the use of similar tools during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
152540
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The frustration of non-nuclear weapon states about the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament has reached boiling point: a vast majority of them have supported a resolution in the UN General Assembly that establishes a negotiation forum for concluding a prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2017. Rising tension among the nuclear powers and populist movements feeding nationalist emotions make it unlikely that the situation will change for the better in the near future. It is thus possible that the NPT might be eroded or, in the worst case scenario, simply collapse because of diminishing support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
143225
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Whether economic interdependence is a cause of war or peace constitutes a central debate in international politics. Two major approaches advance diametrically opposed claims: liberal theory holds that interdependence between states promotes peace by increasing the costs of war; realist theory argues that interdependence is just another word for vulnerability, a condition that states may try to escape by seizing the resources and markets they need for self-sufficiency. Considerable evidence supports both of these claims. In Economic Interdependence and War, Dale Copeland proposes to resolve this stalemate by showing that interdependence promotes peace when states expect mutually beneficial trade to continue, but creates incentives for war when at least one of the states expects that trade trends will leave it dangerously vulnerable. Notwithstanding this book's major theoretical contributions and its impressive historical research, it leaves open several important questions about how to move forward with its agenda of theoretical development and testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|