| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148567
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The above arguments on both sides of debate view ‘strategic autonomy’ in ‘give it up or take it away’ framework, which ignores its dynamic nature, which results from the prevailing strategic scenario and the capability and the desire of states to address the same. Kalyanaraman rightly remarks, that in effect, the practice of strategic autonomy is a function of the power capabilities possessed by a state and of the structure of the international system in a particular historical era. It is true that the principle of ‘strategic autonomy’ has deep ideological moorings in India as its spirit was carried forward under the rubric of non-alignment during cold war. However, this principle should not be taken as an end or a fixed goal post but as the means to realize India’s core national interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
132351
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
States involved in territorial disputes have several options with regard to resolving their disputes. What types of states are more likely to resort to legal methods of peaceful resolution in attempting to resolve their territorial disputes? We posit that two separate mechanisms affect states' decisions to choose legal methods of peaceful resolution: the legal mechanism - domestic rule-of-law, and the political mechanism - win/loss record. Rule-of-law based arguments cannot fully explain states' behavior towards arbitration and adjudication. It is the interplay of both of these mechanisms that explains the strategic choices made by states with regards to arbitration and adjudication. We explain why some high rule-of-law states return to binding methods, while others turn to different forums, and why low rule-of-law states consider binding methods. Empirical analyses of all attempts at peaceful resolution of territorial disputes from 1985 to 2006 show that high rule-of-law states are more likely to return to international binding venues only if they have a positive experience with these methods. On the other hand, we find that low rule-of-law states are not concerned with their record of successes/failures when resorting to international binding venues. Overall, the effect of regime type/rule-of-law is conditioned by past successes and failures in international resolution venues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|