| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
020394
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Autumn 2001.
|
| Description |
43-62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
052804
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
080832
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Can the world be made more peaceful through commerce? Empirical studies of the impact of trade on military conflict have yielded conflicting results depending on the specific measures and empirical domains that scholars select for their studies. The article suggests that these varying results may be due to inadequate specification of the conditions under which trade will prevent conflict. In particular, previous research suggests that democratic leaders rely on public policy successes, such as economic growth, to maintain their political viability to a greater degree than do autocratic leaders. Since trade can help promote growth, the authors argue that democratic leaders should be more averse than autocratic leaders to initiating military conflicts with trading partners, for such conflicts might damage commercial ties and hamper politically important economic growth. The authors find support for this expectation in their analysis of trade integration and international conflict initiation by democratic and autocratic states between 1950 and 1992. The results are robust across different data sources on trade and conflict, suggesting that the conditional impact of trade on conflict may explain the variance in previous results. However, these results have sobering implications for the view that trade dependence by itself can be a mechanism for preventing autocratic states from using military force
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
056127
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
054948
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
053134
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
054799
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
023535
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Feb 2003.
|
| Description |
12-15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
056985
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
021011
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Winter 2002.
|
| Description |
75-92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
053937
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
055304
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2003.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite India's considerable experience with conducting military operations on urbanized terrains (MOUT), there is little evidence that India is adopting a formal MOUT doctrine. Even though India does not have a conventional MOUT doctrine per se, there are valuable lessons that can be learned from IndiaÃs extensive experience in urban operations, particularly in the contexts of low intensity conflict, counter-insurgency, and peacekeeping operations. This article analyzes the dimensions of urban conflict as expounded within the Indian defense literature, examining efforts to determine the unique demands the urban environment exerts on its forces. This research finds that within the Indian force structure, Indian institutions have generally been unable to absorb and disseminate the various lessons learned from these operations. In particular, there are few if any joint mechanisms to ensure that IndiaÃs entire security apparatus can draw from accumulated operational knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
068192
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
057061
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
056632
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
051557
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
065316
|
|
|