| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
137943
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In East Asia, the coercive use of maritime capabilities has led some to argue that the return of gunboat diplomacy has become inevitable. The use of coercion and deterrence there are indeed undeniable. However, Alessio Patalano argues that there is more than gunboats to diplomacy in a self-aware maritime East Asia. Capable navies can offer a significant contribution when dealing with major natural disasters, and these deployments should be regarded as diplomatic missions aimed at building relations and enhancing regional security. Japan's experience in this regard provides a relevant case in support of this argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
088066
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines how and why in March 1995 certain elements of the Canadian government decided to take unilateral forceful action against foreign fishing off the Grand Banks and go against a long tradition of cooperation and multilateralism. In particular, it will address to what extent existing models of decision-making (in particular rational and bureaucratic models) adequately explain the process that went on in Ottawa at this time. The findings are that even though the bureaucratic politics model of decision-making can be used in a parliamentary structure like Canada, it is insufficient to explain Canadian decision-making processes during the Turbot War, and thus must be supplemented by a more inclusive cybernetic approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
114162
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to re-evaluate the visit of the battleship USS Missouri to Turkey on 5-6 April 1946, to ascertain whether or not it might be considered an early attempt on the part of the United States to challenge the Soviet Union. Greater historical clarity than previously possible has been achieved through the use of hitherto unreleased documents from the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Turkish Republic. Moreover, this article aims to achieve a more balanced and comprehensive analysis by integrating the systemic factors with the actions of crucial actors at the individual level based on new archival evidence. By doing this, the main argument emerges whereby the United States displayed its power against the Soviets via the visit of the USS Missouri only in hindsight; while the decision to send home the exhumed body of the late Turkish ambassador Mehmet Münir Ertegün was the action of an individual. However, due to the advent of the Cold War, the dynamics shaping Turkey's search for security and ultimately the containment policy of the United States, has loaded the event with more meaning than was originally intended, turning a 'diplomatic courtesy' into 'gunboat diplomacy'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
055775
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
185317
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
027157
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
1st ed.
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Trimurti Publications, 1972.
|
| Description |
ix, 195p.hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 010831 | 954.9205/CHO 010831 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
030077
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Tamurti Pyblications Private Limited, 1972.
|
| Description |
ix, 195p.hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 010131 | 954.043/CHO 010131 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
052750
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, I B Tauris, 2003.
|
| Description |
xiii, 181p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
1860648819
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 048353 | 953.8053/SAL 048353 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
188437
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After some two decades of growing partnership between Seoul and Tehran, South Korea’s bilateral relationship with Iran reached a bottom of absolute gloom under the leadership of Moon Jae-in. Most of his presidency coincided with the administration of Donald Trump who followed a relatively contrasting approach toward the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues. Washington’s Pyongyang and Tehran policies were naturally bound to create opportunities as well as troubles for the Moon-led Korean government’s dealing with North Korea and Iran. Arguing from a perspective of strategic choice, this study asserts that Moon almost forfeited the ROK’s commercial interests in Iran for the sake of advancing his North Korean agenda. As a corollary, the South Korean–Iranian ties sank to an all-time low, culminating in unprecedented diplomatic tensions between the two countries over the issue of Iran’s oil incomes frozen in Seoul. The Mideast country’s subsequent resort to gunboat diplomacy by seizing a Korean oil tanker in the Persian Gulf did also little to break the gridlock over the dilemma of blocked assets because any satisfactory and lasting solution regarding this intractable trouble largely hinged on resolving the fate of Iran’s nuclear deal between Tehran and Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
018482
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2001.
|
| Description |
2005-2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
096464
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
155887
|
|
|