Suchergebnisse

"Where the implications of war and peace are open to question, the possibility of change depends more on politics than economics. This book asks whether the region's great powers can overcome opposing interests and commit to political restraint. The concept of regional security is based on great power support for regional order. However, there are many pitfalls to consider: notably, the politics of contested nationalisms; the Asia-Pacific rivalry of China and the US; and India's inclinations to function - or be seen - as a benevolent hegemon for the region. Yet there are signs of renewed determination to move the region in new directions. While China's Silk Road projects are long-term regional investments that hinge on regional stability, the US is attempting to fashion new partnerships and India strives to reconcile regional differences to promote a peaceful environment.This book, as it sets out the emerging agendas of the great powers and local powers, makes a significant contribution to a better understanding of the international relations and diplomatic politics of South Asia."--Bloomsbury Publishing

The series Religion and Society (RS) contributes to the exploration of religions as social systems- both in Western and non-Western societies; in particular, it examines religions in their differentiation from, and intersection with, other cultural systems, such as art, economy, law and politics. Due attention is given to paradigmatic case or comparative studies that exhibit a clear theoretical orientation with the empirical and historical data of religion and such aspects of religion as ritual, the religious imagination, constructions of tradition, iconography, or media. In addition, the formation of religious communities, their construction of identity, and their relation to society and the wider public are key issues of this series.

"Do leaders make war decisions individually or do they consider other ongoing conflicts? Most researchers assume dyadic independence out of convenience. In Military Resource Division, Dr. Carnegie presents evidence that this is a faulty assumption. First, he develops a formal theory in which limited military resources act as a constraint on the ability of leaders to engage in international conflicts. Country leaders consider plan accordingly by considering the entire picture of conflicts. This theory, in contrast to dyadic dependence, implies a different data-generating process for international conflicts. Second, he tests both theories using summary statistics, network analysis, and logistic regression. All three methods show strong support for military resource division theory. He further shows that the dependent effects change with time, even when controlling for polarity. The effects also differ between regions, which implies cultural factors at work. Third, he suggests for the future that researchers use multiple methods to account for different types of dependencies, because no single method can address them all. He shows how to make the best use of logistic regression and social network analysis for conflict statistics. He offers suggestions to policy makers for how best to incorporate this theory in analysis. Finally, he concludes by comparing predictions of the two theories regarding conflicts for the United States, especially Iran and North Korea. This book will be of interest to conflict researchers in academia and government who want to better understand the effect of coalitions on modern warfare"--

This study is an exploration of the logic of hegemony in one of the most significant policy areas of international relations: international security. I argue that despite huge international opposition during the Court's early years of existence as well as the fact that 3 out of 5 permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members are not Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UNSC decision-making between 2002 and 2010 was framed by the hegemonic Justice discourse. The result of intense lobbying by international criminal law experts, NGO human rights activists, policymakers, journalists, and state representatives acting within the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Parties and the media, Justice was the new ideology of international security. In order to empirically analyze this process of hegemonization, I developed a hermeneutic conceptual framework based on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's Poststructuralist Discourse Theory (PDT) and an inductive qualitative research strategy that can be applied to concrete international policy discourses. I defined hegemony as a process of hegemonization that takes place under specific historical circumstances in a particular international policy area. In order to reveal its workings I relied on a comprehensive list of PDT concepts operationalized as meso-level Discursive Mechanisms. Through the linking of various political demands, the creation of a collective identity, the gripping of the floating signifiers "Peace", "Security", "Sovereingty", "Protection", "Accountability", and "Rule of Law", and institution of a new political imaginary, Justice became one of the most successful discourses in early 21st century international relations. The new security ideology withstood challenges from three major counterdiscourses: the homegrown American version of "Politicization", the African Union's institutional discourse, and the ongoing normative attack from the loose network of actors defending ...

We acknowledge the contribution of von Stein (2005) in calling attention to the very real problem of selection bias in estimating treaty effects. Nonetheless, we dispute both von Stein's theoretical and empirical conclusions. Theoretically, we contend that treaties can both screen and constrain simultaneously, meaning that findings of screening do nothing to undermine the claim that treaties constrain state behavior as well. Empirically, we question von Stein's estimator on several grounds, including its strong distributional assumptions and its statistical inconsistency. We then illustrate that selection bias does not account for much of the difference between Simmons's (2000) and von Stein's (2005) estimated treaty effects, and instead reframe the problem as one of model dependency. Using a preprocessing matching step to reduce that dependency, we then illustrate treaty effects that are both substantively and statistically significant—and that are quite close in magnitude to those reported by Simmons.