|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173230
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In opening this special issue, our conceptual essay reclaims the importance of revisionism for regional analysis. It identifies and offers key conceptual and analytical tools for a multifaceted analysis of revisionism, discussing its various forms in relation to the aims and risk propensity of a given country. As a transdisciplinary and theoretical eclecticism, dilemma analysis is utilised to bridge the divide between political science, international relations, and security studies. To ascertain the extent of revisionism, we offer and operationalise six dilemmas seen as central for grasping its contemporary parameters: political order, political regimes, technology, migration, the economy, and the international system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
189225
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
I discuss changes in the character and mechanisms of rule in the China–Hong Kong relationship after the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL). I focus on the broader impacts of this particular legal norm on political order. By building on institutionalist theories of direct and indirect rule, I argue that HKNSL and the following changes brought about a compounded (amalgamated) type of rule of China over Hong Kong. It is based on a blend of aspects and mechanisms that do not account for direct governance in the full sense but utilise some elements of it. The post-HKNSL situation entangles new ruling mechanisms with those that had existed previously but were updated and strengthened in the post-HKNSL aftermath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
173231
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The essay investigates the revisionism of great powers, namely Russia, the United States and China. We study intermestic configurations, linking domestic populism, the presidential power of national leaders as expressed by their strategic narratives, and each state’s international revisionist posture. In each case, we identify a different style of revisionism: Russia’s ‘guerrilla’ great power revisionism, the Trumpian anti-doctrine revisionism, and China’s revisionist quest for power and status. We argue that the different revisionist trajectories of these great powers contribute to the multifaceted and uneven unmaking of global liberal internationalism and liberal norms rather than to a coherent revisionist challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|