| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134248
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since the Vietnam War, Australian defence policy has been based on the concept of self-reliance—the ability to defend Australia without allied combat forces. Self-reliance arose from concerns about US support in conflict with Indonesia. It has implications for Australian foreign policy, force structuring, joint operations and the defence industry, which were most coherently laid out in the 1987 White Paper. Later White Papers adapted this framework, but the 2013 White Paper seems to move towards a new approach to defence policy and strategy, which continued use of the term ‘self-reliance’ obscures rather than elucidates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134246
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the Korean developmental state since the late 1990s, and argues that the state has continued to play a weighty role in the economy. The state guided industrial and financial restructuring after the Asian economic crisis, and intervened to stimulate the economy during the 2008 global financial crisis. In doing so, state elites have displayed a distinctive form of economic leadership that is largely consistent with the developmental state. Rather than focusing predominantly on performance-related indicators of state strength such as growth rates, this article analyses the deeper aspects of the developmental state, specifically its internal functions and its collaboration with business. The article brings politics back into analysis of the developmental state by questioning the assumption that strong economic performance is necessary for the maintenance of close ties between the state and chaebol. Instead, economic performance is better understood as a predictor of patterns of conflict and cooperation. Long-standing ties between the state and big business have endured two significant economic crises, even if the performance of the developmental state has been degraded compared to earlier decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134250
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyses the evolving uses of social media during wartime through the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Spokesperson Facebook and Twitter accounts. The conflict between Israel and Hamas-affiliated groups in November 2012 has generated interesting data about social media use by a sovereign power in wartime and the resultant networked discourse. Facebook data is examined for effective patterns of dissemination through both content analysis and discourse analysis. Twitter data is explored through connected concept analysis to map the construction of meaning in social media texts shared by the IDF. The systematic examination of this social media data allows the authors’ analysis to comment on the evolving modes, methods and expectations for state public diplomacy, propaganda and transparency during wartime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
134247
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Australia, like most other developed democracies, is often alleged to suffer from ‘casualty phobia’. The perception that the Australian public will not tolerate casualties in foreign conflicts has shaped the decisions of both civilian and military policy makers. Measures taken to protect Australian forces from casualties may, for instance, also serve to increase the risk to civilians in the country to which they are deployed. The USA underwent a similar debate some years ago. Innovative public opinion research techniques—especially ‘survey experiments’ which allow researchers to establish causal relationships by consciously manipulating one variable while holding others constant—have established that the American public are not reflexively casualty-phobic and that the impact of casualties on public opinion can be outweighed by other factors, such as the public's confidence in the mission's overall success. In this article, the author replicates one of the key survey experiments from the US debate, suitably adapted to Australian conditions, with a nationally representative sample of Australian voters. The author finds that the same pattern holds in Australia as in the USA: casualties do lower public support for a given mission, but the mission's chances of success matter more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
134249
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Australia's relations with its neighbours in the South Pacific challenge theories of international relations and foreign policy analysis. Most existing analysis eschews an explicitly theoretical approach in favour of empirical description and ‘common sense’ explanations. Yet repeated patterns of interaction suggest that there is scope for developing a more theoretical understanding of the relationships between Australia and the Pacific islands. Moreover, lying at the margins in several dimensions of interstate relations, these relationships test theories and thus provide a basis to delimit or refine them. This article explores three important ways in which theories of international relations and foreign policy analysis and the study of Australia–Pacific island relations can benefit each other. First, Pacific island resistance to the projection of Australian power tests theories about the tactics available to ‘micro-powers’. Australia's frequent reorientation of and regular distraction from its approach to the Pacific islands provide evidence about ‘under-institutionalised’ policy making. Finally, the interaction of Australia's global ‘middle power’ status with its regional dominance challenges ideas of ‘middle power leadership’ and ‘strategic personalities’. These three insights lead to novel hypotheses about the conduct of foreign policy by non-great powers under conditions of extreme asymmetry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|