|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
173235
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Central Asian states face the challenge of containing Russia’s revisionism in the post-Soviet space while maintaining cooperative relations with it and integrating diplomatically and economically into the international system. This essay argues that the Central Asian states are managing this revisionism through a strategy we refer to as ‘balancing regionalism’: cooperating among themselves and with multiple actors to insulate themselves from great power revisionist power politics and from the establishment of an exclusive sphere of influence in their region. This balancing regionalism operates through the following three mechanisms: bridging, dovetailing, and branding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
173233
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The essay assesses NATO’s reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2014. Building on a synthesis of recent advances in strategic studies and works looking at institutional adaptation of security organisations, it presents an analytical framework for assessing strategic adaptation based on innovativeness, scope and cohesiveness. It takes inspiration from two techniques established in the visual arts and music, applying the concepts of pastiche and sampling to the analysis. The analysis concludes that, despite some problems and remaining challenges, NATO’s readjustment to Russian revisionism can be characterised as a moderately successful strategic sampling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
173234
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The essay addresses the nexus between security challenges and response strategies in the Baltic region. The analysis is based on the framework provided by a shelter theory, which distinguishes three levels of security strategies oriented towards external players: political (military), economic and societal. The essay finds out that, first, military and economic challenges to the Baltic states are mostly managed through ‘external shelter’ (NATO (United States) and the European Union); second, most of the current security challenges manifest in the societal sector, predominantly as a result of Russia’s hybrid offensive activities in the region. To deal with these societal challenges, the Baltic states are employing combined strategies of ‘shelter’ and ‘building a buffer from within’, but with a clear priority on internal efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
173237
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The essay explains the origin, scope and forms of the anti-liberal surge taking place in Central and Eastern Europe. Why have voters across the region deserted the liberal politicians who managed to secure peace and prosperity on the ashes of communism? Does the erosion of democratic values and institutions lead to autocracy, or something novel? Special attention will be devoted to the issue of order and chaos in the broader European setting. Can order be maintained without shared values across EU member states? The conclusions will point to the variety of hybrid regimes in Central and Eastern Europe and assess their impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
173236
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
With the notable exception of the Ukraine crisis, Berlin has pursued a cooperative policy vis-à-vis Moscow, demonstrating a unique measure of understanding. This policy is consistent with the two roles that Germany has played in the international system since World War II—as a ‘civilian power’ and as a ‘trading state’. Both have proven successful in foreign policy and economic terms, but have also created a path dependency that complicated adaptability to changed conditions: indecisiveness and a propensity for the middle ground have proven to be its questionable side-effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
173229
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
173232
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Russia has been accused of revisionism in its foreign policy, understood as an effort to undermine a ‘rules-based’ international order. This essay analyses the normative dimension of such revisionism. It examines Russian legal discourse in the period 2014–2019, based on case studies of Russian interventions in Ukraine and Syria. It finds little evidence of sustained Russian legal revisionism—an effort to modify international law—despite Russian assertion of legal exceptionalism in the CIS region. It confirms previous research that Russia has deployed legal rhetoric strategically and instrumentally. Moscow understands it cannot easily gain international support for new rules, yet still seems to aspire to revise the structure of regional power relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|