| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152635
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Ambedkar’s notion of nationalism and nation results primarily rest on both political and social aspect. It did not envision a state based on one group dominated body which is primarily the Hindu dominated body. As he was critic on the view of the nationalist leaders like Gandhi and more particularly the Hindu nationalists who just focussed on freeing the country from the clutches of the British rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
175852
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article aims to contribute to the gradual building of a common scientific language within the world International Relations (IR) epistemic community. The author shares the objective, indicated by many leading Chinese scholars, of a pluralist IR theory that goes beyond Western-centric mainstream theories to provide a European continental perspective. Such a perspective takes stock, on the one hand, of the legacy of Gramsci, Bobbio, and Habermas, and, on the other, of the theoretical implications of European unity as a sophisticated instance of regional cooperation. Since the dialogue must be at the highest possible theoretical level, the author selects as main partners two leading theories from the increasingly rich and internally various Chinese IR scholarship: the books recently published in English by Qin Yaqing and Yan Xuetong, who represent—not only in China, but at world level—two fundamental references in the international theoretical debate. They lead two innovative approaches: Qin’s relational theory and Yan’s theory of moral realism. The author discusses their main theses and concepts regarding IRT and global governance in a free, open, and dialectic way, notably, the balance between background cultures and multilateral convergence; and the differences between the crucial concepts of hegemony, domination, and leadership, as well as alternative perspectives on global governance within a multipolar world—a new post-hegemonic multilateralism? Or a bipolar global power structure competing for leadership?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|