Search results

What can states expect to receive in return for the military aid they provide to other states? Can military aid buy recipient state compliance with donor objectives? In this study, we systematically investigate the effects of US military assistance on recipient state behavior toward the United States. We build on existing literature by creating three explicit theoretical models, employing a new measure of cooperation generated from events data, and controlling for preference similarity, so that our results capture the influence military aid has on recipient state behavior independent of any dyadic predisposition toward cooperation or conflict. We test seven hypotheses using a combination of simultaneous equation, cross-sectional time series, and Heckman selection models. We find that, with limited exceptions, increasing levels of US military aid significantly reduce cooperative foreign policy behavior with the United States. US reaction to recipient state behavior is also counterintuitive; instead of using a carrot-and-stick approach to military aid allocations, our results show that recipient state cooperation is likely to lead to subsequent reductions in US military assistance. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Professor Bernt's article details how the transition from voice service to broadband under the FCC's National Broadband Plan leaves unresolved many issues regarding the role of the states. She proposes using a new "functional" model in which the role of the states in protecting rural and low-income consumers is maintained.

Abstract
Professor Bernt's article details how the transition from voice service to broadband under the FCC's National Broadband Plan leaves unresolved many issues regarding the role of the states. She proposes using a new "functional" model in which the role of the states in protecting rural and low-income consumers is maintained.

Annotation, The U.S. government has made safeguarding of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium an international policy priority, and convened The 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., on April 12 and 13, 2010. Forty six governments sent delegations to the summit and twenty nine of them made national commitments to support nuclear security. During the Summit, India announced its commitment to establish a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Centre is to be open to international participation through academic0 exchanges, training, and research and development efforts."India-United States Cooperation on Global Security" is the summary of a workshop held by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) together with its partner of more than 15 years, the National Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS) in Bangalore, India. The workshop identified and examined potential areas for substantive scientific and technical cooperation between the two countries on issues related to nuclear material security. Technical experts from India and the United States focused on topics of nuclear material security and promising opportunities for India and the United States to learn from each other and cooperate. This report discusses nuclear materials management issues such as nuclear materials accounting, cyber security, physical security, and nuclear forensics

Against a background of past, limited examples of international cooperation, and ambitious hopes for extensive future efforts, this volume puts two related questions to the empirical test: under which conditions are states prepared to cooperate over international migration, and what form - bilateral, multilateral, formal, informal - will this cooperation take?

This article examines relations between theBRICSand leading industrialized states. It starts by analyzing the former's mutual relations, focusing on how the ideational construct presented byJimO'Neill in his "BRIChypothesis" became formalized as a leader‐level diplomatic group at a summit inYekaterinburg,Russia, in 2009. I evaluate how theBRICShave influenced international issues and whether "cooperation" or "conflict" characterizes their relations with key industrialized states, concluding that there has been greater multilateral cooperation since 2008, especially through international forums such as theG20. TheBRICSpartnership is one ofunequals, significant for international economic relations primarily due toChina. This has had important consequences as theChinese government has prioritized economic cooperation with leading industrialized states. Influential countries can continue to benefit by enhancing multilateral ties in what are often nonzero–sum situations.

Empirical research suggests that the existence of territorial disputes makes armed conflict more likely to occur. Yet, there are many states that have engaged in militarized interstate disputes that not only maintain normalized bilateral relations, but cooperate with one another on an increasing number of bilateral issues. How can disputing states like Argentina and the UK so frequently cooperate with each other on bilateral issues when there remains a significant amount of tension regarding their territorial dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands? Our theory suggests that challengers involved in territorial disputes are willing to engagein bilateral cooperation with their adversaries in order to influence upcoming territorial settlement attempts. Bilateral cooperation is purposively and strategically used by the challengers as a form of confidence building measure (CBM) with the goal of reducing the negative impact of the territorial dispute. Empirical analyses of monthly data (1978—2003) on Argentina—UK relations, as well as qualitative evidence from the case, support our theoretical expectations by showing that challengers deliberately link cooperation on bilateral issues to territorial dispute settlement attempts as a form of bargaining incentive to increase the likelihood of peaceful resolution.

Despite the growing recognition of the importance of environmental issues for nation-state security, current research on international environmental security is insufficient. Although scholars in the field of International Relations believe that there is an appropriate role for international relations theory in analyzing global environmental concerns, the existing literature is predominantly descriptive or prescriptive rather than analytical. This study attempts to remedy this problem by conducting an empirical analysis of nation-state behavior in the international environmental realm.