Search results

This study attempts to analyze The nature of the dispute between the major powers in environmental matters by analyzing the strategic calculations of major powers and try out the Least bill and the greatest possible gains, This major powers trying to use negotiations and treaties on environmental issues as a way to expand their areas of influence and trying to adapt to this situation, rather than collapse.
The major powers have transformed the environmental issues You seek to protect the earth from environmental degradation is a priority for the negotiations and meetings To file as a bargaining strategy in the conflict on the energy resources in the profit and loss accounts for the states, So that the negotiations Turned from the global interest to the national interest and the geo-strategic accounts balances between nations.

This article attempts to answer the question of why major powers engage in more active foreign policy behaviors than minor powers. It does so by comparing two explanations for the increased conflict propensity of major powers. The first explanation focuses on major powers' observable capabilities, while the second stresses their different behavior. We incorporate both into an ultimatum model of conflict in which a state's cost of conflict consists of both observable and behavioral components. Using data from the period from 1870 to 2001, we empirically illustrate the observable and behavioral differences between major and minor powers. We then utilize a decomposition model to assess the relative significance of the two explanations. The results suggest that most of the difference in conflict propensity between major and minor powers can be attributed to observable differences.

This article attempts to answer the question of why major powers engage in more active foreign policy behaviors than minor powers. It does so by comparing two explanations for the increased conflict propensity of major powers. The first explanation focuses on major powers' observable capabilities, while the second stresses their different behavior. We incorporate both into an ultimatum model of conflict in which a state's cost of conflict consists of both observable and behavioral components. Using data from the period from 1870 to 2001, we empirically illustrate the observable and behavioral differences between major and minor powers. We then utilize a decomposition model to assess the relative significance of the two explanations. The results suggest that most of the difference in conflict propensity between major and minor powers can be attributed to observable differences. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Examines sources and limits of international power for China, Europe, Japan, Russia, and India; 5 articles. Contents: Russia: power in weakness? by Eugene B. Rumer and Celeste A. Wallander; Why does China matter? by Robert Sutter; Europe's leverage, by Robert E. Hunter; Japan: using power narrowly, by Edward J. Lincoln; Is India a major power? by George Perkovich.

AbstractIt is commonly assumed that smaller powers are prone to getting trapped and lost in the game of contrasting powers; however, the story of six major powers and their relations with Myanmar over the past 70 years has shown that the smaller party does not always take a passive, victimised position in these relations but can achieve an active, relatively independent position. Myanmar accomplished this position by shielding itself from sanctions from the United States, UK, and Japan using China's assistance; implementing selective trade and investment; and diversifying its weapon suppliers, including Russia and other players in the arms market. In this paper, the data on 70 years of arms transfer are analysed to exemplify the defence policy of Myanmar towards major powers, the bilateral trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) data are used for economic policy, and the three indicators provide a simplified but concise picture of Myanmar's long‐term relations with world major powers. Myanmar is a relatively small power in the global landscape of larger powers, but it has maintained its independence in policy making and has made full use of the competition for power among major powers for its own benefit. Thus, it is not the big fish but the small one that has helped shape Myanmar's relations with major powers.

Aus japanischer Sicht + Aus US-amerikanischer Sicht + Aus südkoreanischer Sicht

Profound changes are under way in the relationship between the Southeast Asian countries and the four major powers: the USA, Japan, China and Russia. In the cold war era, a somewhat simplified structure of relationships existed between the Southeast Asian states and the great powers. In the post-cold war era, however, this structure is undergoing change. The paper outlines and highlights this change. (DÜI-Se)