| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
118234
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article questions what the concept of 'globalisation' really amounts to. In doing so it highlights problems for the ascendancy of globalisation in contemporary public debate. Globalisation has become a catch-all; the phrase is now used to try and explain all manner of phenomena from everyday life to international politics. But the article suggests that this may be little more than a combination of rhetoric and wishful thinking. It asserts that the contemporary world is being driven by older and familiar pressures, such as state power and nationalism. As a result, the idea of 'globalisation' needs to be treated with some scepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
116322
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article makes an original contribution to the ongoing debate about British security policy and strategy by investigating for the first time the conceptual 'gap' separating the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). It argues that there exists a genuine contrast in how the MoD and FCO conceive of the international system itself and Britain's place within it. The article analyses the indigenous worldviews of the departments - the assumptions, thought-processes, and conceptual paradigms employed by the MoD and FCO. Given the current determination to increase 'joined-up' Government, this problem needs to be acknowledged and discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
111668
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the United Kingdom's National Security Strategy (NSS) since 2008, considering what the NSS discloses about how contemporary Whitehall conceptualises 'risks' to Britain. It contends that rather than being a strategy in the Clausewitzian sense, the NSS represents a political exercise in risk management. In addressing a range of quite different problems, the NSS suggests that those in Whitehall now conceive their role as being to shield the citizen from any conceivable threat to their safety, wellbeing, and even emotional security. Yet this constitutes a highly expansive vision, and elevates the state's provision of public goods to a potentially unmanageable level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|