Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This paper, which covers the period of the 2004 Annan Plan and its rejection to date, places the Cyprus Problem in an International Relations theoretic framework. It searches for a "foreign policy outcome," essentially a decision by the leaders of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, to politically reunite these two communities under the auspices of the UN. The paper provides a synthesis of the neo-liberal and the neoclassical realist paradigms, aiming to better interpret the existing experience and to shed light on the prospect of a future solution to the problem. The strategic environment for the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is 'permissive' because the message sent by the international system for reunification does not require the use of hard power. The leaders of the two communities play a key role, although the strategic political culture in small states such as the TRNC is not developed and state-society relations are underdeveloped. Also, the civil society at large can play a role in influencing the leaders' images regarding the reunification opportunity.

Literature has tended to characterise Japanese foreign policy as primarily reactive to US interests, with many analyses focusing on aspects such as the gaiatsu or US pressure on Tokyo. Some analysts go further and depict Japan as a 'reactive state' with a foreign policy characterised as passive, risk-avoiding, ineffective and lacking of assertiveness. Accordingly, changes in Japanese diplomacy occur as a response to international stimuli rather than to domestic needs. However, while outside pressure is crucial in accounting for Japan's foreign policy, approaches based solely on the gaiatsu/'reactive state thesis' fail to provide a full explanation of Japan's behaviour, particularly in the promotion of regional initiatives. This article studies Japan's post-Cold War Asian regional policy and shows that its Asia-Pacific strategy cannot be explained as merely a reactive policy with a tendency to concede to US pressure. We aim to fill this gap by adopting a neoclassical realist approach that incorporates gaiatsu and their interplay with intervening variables at the individual and domestic levels. We demonstrate that domestic political actors have played a primary role in defining Tokyo's Asia-Pacific policy choices and argue that Japan has pursued a relatively independent regional strategy vis-à-vis the USA in the post-Cold War period.

The article discusses the neoclassical realism theory in international relations and is an attempt of the author to present all of its main features as well as differences to other two realism theories (classical realism and neorealism). The two subgroups of this theory - offensive and defensive neoclassical realism - are also examined trough the works of Randall Schweller and Jack Snyder respectively. . ; Tekst se bavi teorijom neoklasičnog realizma u međunarodnim odnosima i predstavlja pokušaj autora da prikaže njegove glavne odlike, kao i razlike i odnosu na druge dve grane realističke teorije - klasični realizam i neorealizam. Takođe, u tekstu se govori i o dve glavne podgrupe ove teorije koje su prikazane kroz analizu radova njihovih glavnih predstavnika (Randala Švelera u slučaju ofanzivnog i Džeka Snajdera u slučaju defanzivnog neoklasičnog realizma). .

This article examines various theoretical viewpoints, assessing their success in explaining Japan's current security policy towards China. With a variety of theoretically salient factors in place, including a dynamic balance of power, extant regional institutions, economic interdependence and a highly publicized pacifist identity, Japan's China policy presents a prime opportunity to test different international relations theories. We review four theories of interest, structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, liberal interdependence and constructivism, finding limited support for structural realist and constructivist predictions. We then offer a neoclassical realist model, building from a realist foundation but accounting for the influence of state structure, strategic culture and parochial interests of governing elites.