Suchergebnisse

Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. This ocean is the key to the seven seas. In the 21st century the destiny of the world will be decided on its waters.

At head of title: The Citizen's Library. ; pt. I. National imperialism.--pt. II. The opening of China.--pt. III. The consequences of the opening of China in world politics.--pt. IV. German imperial politics.--pt. V. Some consideration on the position of the United States as a factor in oriental politics. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article explores the link between collective memory and state behaviour in international relations. In that regard, it develops a new concept entitled 'temporal security'. Building on the existing ontological security literature, it extends a temporal understanding to its underlying identity concept. Countries are now assumed to be temporal-security seekers vis-a-vis a 'significant historical other' from their past. Decision makers thus enter into a self-reflective conversation with their country's 'collective memory' when choosing courses of action. Contrasted with existing physical-security and ontological security explanations for state behaviour, the explanatory potential of the temporal-security approach is in a second step illustrated by the empirical case of West Germany and Austria, two former Nazi perpetrator states, and their respective assignments of support during conflict in the Middle East. Through a comparative, qualitative discourse analysis of historical documents during the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War and oil crisis of 1973, the empirical study finds that West Germany and Austria adopted different courses of action in their international politics, because they looked to Nazi Germany as their significant historical other.

This article explores the link between collective memory and state behaviour in international relations. In that regard, it develops a new concept entitled 'temporal security'. Building on the existing ontological security literature, it extends a temporal understanding to its underlying identity concept. Countries are now assumed to be temporal-security seekers vis-a-vis a 'significant historical other' from their past. Decision makers thus enter into a self-reflective conversation with their country's 'collective memory' when choosing courses of action. Contrasted with existing physical-security and ontological security explanations for state behaviour, the explanatory potential of the temporal-security approach is in a second step illustrated by the empirical case of West Germany and Austria, two former Nazi perpetrator states, and their respective assignments of support during conflict in the Middle East. Through a comparative, qualitative discourse analysis of historical documents during the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War and oil crisis of 1973, the empirical study finds that West Germany and Austria adopted different courses of action in their international politics, because they looked to Nazi Germany as their significant historical other.

This article explores the link between collective memory and state behaviour in international relations. In that regard, it develops a new concept entitled 'temporal security'. Building on the existing ontological security literature, it extends a temporal understanding to its underlying identity concept. Countries are now assumed to be temporal-security seekers vis-a-vis a 'significant historical other' from their past. Decision makers thus enter into a self-reflective conversation with their country's 'collective memory' when choosing courses of action. Contrasted with existing physical-security and ontological security explanations for state behaviour, the explanatory potential of the temporal-security approach is in a second step illustrated by the empirical case of West Germany and Austria, two former Nazi perpetrator states, and their respective assignments of support during conflict in the Middle East. Through a comparative, qualitative discourse analysis of historical documents during the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War and oil crisis of 1973, the empirical study finds that West Germany and Austria adopted different courses of action in their international politics, because they looked to Nazi Germany as their significant historical other.

"International relations scholar Oystein Tunsjo argues that the international system is transitioning to a bipolarity between the United States and China. Tunsjo develops the case for contemporary bipolarity not only by examining the current distribution of capabilities, but contends that the contemporary distribution of capabilities in the international system is roughly similar to the origins of the last bipolar system of the 1950s. Beginning with a foundation in theory, the book defines polarity and discusses how we can measure power and rank states. Tunsjo introduces three criteria for studying shifts in the distribution of capabilities among the top ranking powers: their rank based on a combined capability score derived from Kenneth Waltz's theory, the space between the second and third ranking power, and a historical comparison of the state's most recent bipolar system. With these models in place, we find that the Soviet hard-balancing seen in the Cold War is replaced by geographical conditions in the U.S.-China bipolar system to create instability and a likelihood for conflict. This is a provocative text that challenges long-held theories in the field and provides new insights on the important relationship between geography and bipolarity--in fact most of the current debates do not even consider bipolarity. Tunsjo discusses implications for the behavior of the U.S. and China and especially the effects of a new bipolar system for the dynamics of international politics"--