Search results

Adam Chapnick, the editor of the International Journal's excellent series on the "lessons of history," is a respected historian, but of the authors recruited to study what lessons history provides, only one dwells professionally in a department of history (Andrew Preston at Oxford). Three others have doctorates in history but one teaches international studies (David Webster) while John Hilliker is a retired official historian and Chris Pennington is an editor at the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. The remainder -- David Bosco, Margaret Doxey, Barbara Falk, Joseph Jockei, Carol Lancaster, Chris Sands, and Chris Spearin -- have degrees in political science, law, or international relations/studies. While this group has made significant contributions to historical scholarship and their essays reflect their solid understanding of historical scholarship, their professional careers have reflected their training in political science, economics, or international relations. The essayists vary considerably in their willingness to find lessons in history. Adapted from the source document.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a regulatory agency within the United States (US) federal government. To ensure consumer health, the FDA has been responsible for inspecting domestic food facilities within the US throughout modern American history. Since 2008, the FDA's regulatory mandate has extended overseas, with the stationing of inspectors abroad. These inspectors intrusively oversee the increasingly globalized US food supply chain stretching around the world. As of 2013, the FDA inspectors have conducted inspections of registered foreign food facilities more than 5,000 times in 61 countries. It has also set up several foreign offices in Asia, Latin America, Europe, Africa and Middle East. Why are these inspectors enforcing US domestic food safety standards in foreign countries? This anomalous pattern of US inspectors overseeing food safety standards within borders of foreign governments is best conceived as a form of ``extraterritoriality.'' My dissertation explains this emerging US-led extraterritoriality with three general theoretical claims in chapter 2. First, food safety is a policy area in which government regulators persistently intervene because it has distributional impacts on private producers and consumers. Second, a government regulator can credibly assure consumers of food safety in international trade when its domestic political institutions empower consumers; by contrast, when domestic political institutions are biased against consumers, the government regulator cannot make it. Third, the political approval of a pro-consumer government regulator's extraterritorial regulation comes with a greater reciprocal access to its domestic market, thus giving foreign producers and their governments positive selective incentives to support the extraterritorial regulation.I adopt a mixed-method approach to validate three general theoretical claims empirically. Chapter 3 qualitatively demonstrates that government regulators have been persistently intervening in food safety governance throughout history. Moreover, it shows that policymakers are well aware of distributional impacts of food safety on private producers and consumers. Chapter 4 experimentally shows that the US FDA can more credibly assure consumers of the safety of food in the US-China bilateral food trade than its Chinese equivalent in two coordinated surveys of American and Chinese citizens. This is consistent with my second claim about credibility. Chapter 5 constructs an interrupted time-series quasi-experiment to show that the foreign approval of US extraterritorial regulation comes with a greater reciprocal access to the US domestic market, giving foreign government regulators incentives to accept US inspectors beyond borders. This supports my third theoretical claim about reciprocity.Together, my dissertation makes two contributions to the field of international relations. First, it is the first systematic study on food safety, which has not been explored in previous research on world politics. Second, in order to explain the anomalous extraterritorial governance of food safety, it develops a revised open-economy politics approach to global governance that more closely integrate international political dynamics into models rooted in domestic politics.

Food and agricultural trade has emerged as a battleground for geopolitics in recent years. Indeed, greater Sino-Russian trade cooperation in these sectors, amidst growing tensions with the West, raises the question of whether this sector is becoming a new focal point in their strategic partnership. But increased trade and market access belies the reality that the ties between the two powers in this sector are still marred by a range of tariff and non-tariff barriers and mismatched rather than complementary market profiles. Moreover, the sector replicates many of the asymmetric dynamics that mark the broader economic relationship. To the extent that the sector has increasingly been considered by authorities in strategic terms, however, Sino-Russian trade in this sector proves a useful indicator of both the possibilities and the limits of the broader bilateral rapprochement.

Putin's Russia appeared to gain the greatest benefits from Kazakhstan's Bloody January. Contrary to claims that the Kremlin's influence in the republic is growing, I show how Russia's relatively weak economic standing, coupled with Kazakhstanis' changing attitudes, will seriously limit Russia's ability to increase its geopolitical influence over Kazakhstan.

O governo de Jair Bolsonaro iniciou-se em 2019. Desde sua campanha eleitoral, eram notáveis algumas opiniões e prioridades distintas daquelas trazidas pelos 14 anos de governo do Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT). A constância da política externa brasileira já havia sido quebrada com a entrada do presidente interino Michel Temer em 2016 no país, mas o governo Bolsonaro trouxe novas rupturas. A política externa é a via fundamental para a cooperação com outros Estados, originando acordos, projetos e vantagens comerciais. Essas relações são estabelecidas a partir de imagens que são projetadas do Estado, onde são evidenciadas suas preferências e focos, assim como se discursa como se deseja que os outros o enxerguem. Dessa forma, este artigo realizou análise documental de duas alocuções proferidas pelo chanceler Ernesto Araújo: uma em uma reunião do G20 e outra em uma reunião do BRICS, ambas ocorridas em 2020. O intuito do trabalho foi determinar qual a imagem do Brasil que está sendo projetada internacionalmente, por meio deste ator específico, considerando que o Ministro das Relações Exteriores carrega uma grande responsabilidade em relação a isso em suas aparições públicas e discursos. A partir das análises, conclui-se que as alocuções de Araújo contribuíram para uma imagem de unilateralismo, nacionalismo, preferência ao bilateralismo em detrimento do multilateralismo, e uma não credibilidade em relação às organizações multilaterais e suas recomendações, com fortes sugestões de reforma dessas instituições.

The war in Ukraine is challenging the very premise of Eurasian regionalism. It is increasing countries' concerns about their membership and about excessive dependence on Russia; it is making trade relations difficult because of Western sanctions; and it is pushing the entire region into a deep recession. At the same time, the unprecedented sanctions against Russia are also prompting Eurasian autocracies to question their own deep connections with the West. We review these key trends by analyzing the development of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), paying particular attention to Kazakhstan's position in the organization.

This paper analyzes the impact of the Ukraine war on Armenia's situation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). I argue that the Russia-Ukraine war and the ensuing deterioration of relations between the West and Russia have, with one notable exception, significantly limited Armenia's capacity to instrumentalize the Eurasian agenda to its political and economic advantages. The study will show that this new challenge has, by and large, been due to the huge asymmetry in economic power between Russia and other EAEU member states.

Russia's military intervention will change Russia itself and its relations towards post-Soviet countries. It will undermine Putin's great power ambitions and role as a hegemon in its post-Soviet neighborhood. Further securitization and isolation will weaken Russia's ability to modernize. This will further fuel the disintegration of the post-Soviet space and weaken Russia's role in a multipolar world.