Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe briefly trace the claim that a set of counties across the three states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in large part determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Rather than the demographic characteristics of the Census as such it is the meaning that these categories (young/old, Black/White, male/female, and so on) take on in particular places in which people's lives are grounded that drives electoral outcomes. Given that the counties in question were ones in which Obama had performed well but which Trump won in 2016 and this shift was put down to his appeal to those "left behind" in the post-2008 economy, we focus on whether or not this localized appeal can be expected to continue in 2020.

This article outlines how a materialist understanding of foreign policy predicated on contrasting sovereignty regimes might be applied to current conflicts between China and the United States and its allies in the South China Sea. A stark divergence between liberal and realist commentary, policy prescriptions, and policy practices has emerged in both China and the United States. We provide a critical overview of the dispute before arguing that these disparities are, at root, symptoms of a material contradiction between the benefits and risks of economic interdependence and territorial expansionism. These symptoms are consequently founded upon a real-world paradox, refracted through fundamentally different modalities of practicing state sovereignty, and will ultimately be resolved politically. An intensification of interstate rivalry is fast becoming the outcome of a period of unprecedented economic interconnectedness, to which these variegated sovereignty regimes are contributing.

Résumé Quand bien même le pouvoir politique serait territorial, la territorialité n'implique pas nécessairement les pratiques d'exclusion mutuelle totale que lui attribuent les conceptions dominantes de l'État moderne. Cependant, dans les théories des relations internationales, lorsqu'il est question de la territorialité d'un État, la discussion est presque toujours menée dans les termes de la persistance ou de l'obsolescence d'un État territorial compris comme une entité inchangée et non dépendante des circonstances historico-géographiques variées. Cette approche est remise en question par les évènements contemporains. La fin de la Guerre froide, la vélocité et la volatilité croissantes de l'économie mondiale et l'émergence de mouvements politiques hors du cadre des États territoriaux, suggèrent qu'il faut comprendre la territorialité des États dans un contexte historique. Les trois présupposés géographiques sur lesquels s'appuie la pensée orthodoxe (les États comme des unités fixes d'espace souverain, la polarité intérieur/étranger et les États comme des « conteneurs » des sociétés) aboutissent à un « piège territorial ».

Even when political rule is territorial, territoriality does not necessarily entail the practices of total mutual exclusion which dominant understandings of the modern territorial state attribute to it. However, when the territoriality of the state is debated by international relations theorists the discussion is overwhelmingly in terms of the persistence or obsolescence of the territorial state as an unchanging entity rather than in terms of its significance and meaning in different historical-geographical circumstances. Contemporary events call this approach into question. The end of the Cold War, the increased velocity and volatility of the world economy, and the emergence of political movements outside the framework of territorial states, suggest the need to consider the territoriality of states in historical context. Conventional thinking relies on three geographical assumptions (states as fixed units of sovereign space, the domestic foreign polarity, and states as 'containers' of societies) that have led into the 'territorial trap'. Adapted from the source document.