| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174893
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On May 8, 2018, President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Since the JCPOA is endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution and supported by the international community, Trump has had to justify this controversial decision. Based on data extracted from Trump’s Twitter account and taking advantage of Theo van Leeuwen’s (2008) discursive construction of the legitimation model, this article addresses the following question: How has Donald Trump attempted to delegitimize the JCPOA? Findings in this article show that Trump used the strategies of moral evaluation and rationalization in an attempt to delegitimize the JCPOA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
174889
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The value of India’s oil and gas trade with the United States rapidly increased in size over the last two to three years. Efforts by New Delhi to build better bilateral relations with Washington helped to energise the fossil fuel trade. India, as a consumer, can expect to buy oil and gas at reasonable prices in the mid-term, ensured not least by competition among suppliers. However, India’s import of coal from the US suppliers is projected to decline due to recent decision of the Indian Government to become self-sufficient in coal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
174900
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As influential actors in the regional security architecture, India and Vietnam share common political and security interests and their bilateral cooperation plays a crucial role in contributing towards shaping a safe and secure Indo-Pacific region. Both the countries share an identical value perspective on the Indo-Pacific and hence augmenting their strength in the regional order would facilitate maritime security, reviewing opportunities and challenges in the region, as well as building an equitable and open trade and investment system. Reinforcing and extending cooperation to other countries helps to realise shared objectives and contributes towards better management of pressing regional and global issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
174895
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The desirability and necessity of having a relook into the re-categorization of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defined High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) and Plutonium (Pu) by focussing on the relevance of strategic value/isotopic composition of the materials for re-categorization, for example, creating an intermediate category between the existing Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) and weapons-grade uranium (U-235 > 90 per cent) and re-categorizing plutonium into Weapons-Grade Plutonium (WGPU) and Reactor-Grade Plutonium (RGPU), specifying the content of Pu-240 in each case, had been suggested by various specialists. According to them, this re-categorization facilitates flexible IAEA inspection goals, does not compromise on safeguards efficacy and at the same time could result in reduced inspection efforts and costs. An assessment has been made from the available literature and it is possible to conclude that (i) only a relatively small enrichment effort is needed to enrich uranium with 20 per cent U-235 to weapons-grade uranium and (ii) non-weapons-grade plutonium can also be used in nuclear weapons. This article therefore argues that there is no need to change the existing IAEA categorization of HEU and Pu, and the current IAEA practices should continue for a more meaningful safeguards implementation. In addition, it is argued that technological advancements in safeguards verification, and pragmatic adaptation of integrated safeguards, state-level approach may bring about flexibility in safeguards approach. Further, it is suggested that with a large safeguards verification database at its disposal, the IAEA may take a decision on revising the value of Significant Quantity (SQ) without changing other criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
174885
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Xunzi and The Kautilya Arthasastra are full of rich philosophical thoughts on inter-state relations. This article undertakes a comparison between them in terms of their methods of writing, views on the nature of inter-state systems and arguments about a state’s comprehensive power. This article finds that the leadership’s determination and emphasis on morality are two important shared mentalities between Xunzi and Kautilya. Both attribute the rise and fall of a state mainly to state leadership rather than material factors or the political system. Regarding the survival of a state, they both stress the importance of the leadership’s morality in handling inter-state affairs. Unfortunately, their ideas about leadership morality have not been whole-heartedly adopted by major powers to their foreign policy-making in the twenty-first century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|