Suchergebnisse

In the years around the Second World War, policymakers in the US & Western Europe faced security challenges occasioned by the development of new technologies & the emergence of transnational ideological conflict. In coming to terms with these challenges, they developed the historically novel practice in which a state might maintain a long-term, peacetime military presence on the territory of another sovereign state without the subjugation of the latter. Such arrangements between substantive equals were previously unthinkable: under the inherited understanding of sovereignty, in which there was a tight linkage between military presence & territorial authority, such military presences could be understood only in terms of occupation or annexation. This text applies concepts derived from pragmatist thought to a historical study of the relations between the US & its wartime allies to explain the origin of this phenomenon.

In Armed Guests, Sebastian Schmidt develops a theory to explain the emergence of this phenomenon, which he calls "sovereign basing," and in doing so, shows how this new practice fundamentally changed state sovereignty and the very nature of security competition. He applies concepts derived from pragmatist thought to a historical study of the relations between the United States and its wartime allies to explain how sovereign basing originated through the efforts of policymakers to come to grips with the unique security environment of the postwar era.

The collapse of the bipolar system of international relations at the end of the twentieth century led to global changes in these relations, the main one being that local conflicts have replaced large-scale wars. Soft power is increasingly moving in to replace hard power; international and nongovernmental organizations, transnational companies, and even terrorist groups are taking the place of individual countries on the international arena. Nevertheless, when it comes to state security, certain mechanisms that used to be part of the bipolar system continue to function. I am referring to military bases abroad, which, in the context of globalization, continue to play just as significant role in international relations as they did during the Cold War. This article takes a look at how important it is to have these facilities in the territory of foreign states, as well as the advantages they offer the countries where they are located, using Central Asia (CA) as an example.

In the years around the Second World War, policymakers in the US & Western Europe faced security challenges occasioned by the development of new technologies & the emergence of transnational ideological conflict. In coming to terms with these challenges, they developed the historically novel practice in which a state might maintain a long-term, peacetime military presence on the territory of another sovereign state without the subjugation of the latter. Such arrangements between substantive equals were previously unthinkable: under the inherited understanding of sovereignty, in which there was a tight linkage between military presence & territorial authority, such military presences could be understood only in terms of occupation or annexation. This text applies concepts derived from pragmatist thought to a historical study of the relations between the US & its wartime allies to explain the origin of this phenomenon.

The category of the sphere of influence can explain some contemporary international processes. To define that category, however, much stress is laid on great powers' exclusivity within their spheres of influence. The author takes into consideration the thesis of the aforementioned exclusivity's erosion. Because foreign military bases are essential instruments of spheres of influence due to their strong impact on security policy, it is worth investigating their presence in this context. Specifically, the author carries out an in-depth study of military bases of more than one major power in one host country. Further, the article discusses the extent to which the gradual erosion of exclusivity undermines the significance of spheres of influence as such. In conclusion, the author states that the case of Djibouti undermines the idea of great power exclusivity. Yet, other cases do not provide sufficient evidence on such deep transformation because of either limited periods of bases' existence or great power cooperative attitudes.