Suchergebnisse

The recent scholarly work on the concept of enduring rivalries offers a promising way to examine strategic interaction among dyads of states over extended periods of time. A focus on rivalry, and on the mechanisms that provide for such interaction, may offer a way to bridge existing theories of international relations that rely exclusively on structure or process. Unfortunately, the potential for theory‐building has not been fully realized because research into rivalry has tended to be inductive. This paper seeks to rectify that problem by situating the rivalry concept within a social psychological approach to international relations. The rivalry concept is appropriately located in a theoretical approach that views the international system as a social system where actors are conditioned by mechanisms of competition and socialization.

The reduction of agricultural trade barriers accomplished at the close of the Uruguay Round (UR) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is a puzzle because previous research has suggested that producer groups would always succeed in blocking liberalization efforts. The author explains this apparent puzzle through the use of a comparative historical method developed by Collier and Collier for analyzing the UR as a critical juncture. The analysis suggests that transformations in productive technology enabled producer groups to reap extraordinary economic and political rents during most of the post-World War II era. However, the fiscal crises of the 1980s provided governments an incentive to exert relative autonomy from producer groups and initiate bargaining over trade barriers. As trade barriers and the political influence of producer groups were reduced, the UR emerged as the product of a critical juncture in the transition from the Fordist to the post-Fordist mode of agricultural accumulation.

Lansford, T.: Homeland security from Clinton to Bush: an assessment. - S. 1-18 Pasley, J. F.: United States homeland security in the information age: dealing with the threat of cyberterrorism. - S. 19-26 Sheffer, M. S.: Presidential war powers and the war on terrorism: are we destined to repeat our mistakes? - S. 27-44 Greenwood, C.: International law and the 'war on terrorism'. - S. 45-59 Davis, J.: The evolution of American grand strategy and the war on terrorism: Clinton and Bush perspectives. - S. 61-78 Thies, C. G.; Galatas, L. A.: Assessing the Bush doctrine. - S. 79-91 Dagne, T.: Africa and the war on terrorism. - S. 93-110 Bardos, G. N.: The war on terrorism in the Balkans: a report card on US policy after 9/11. - S. 111-125 Palmer, R. D.: Terrorism and Southeast Asia: Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia. - S. 127-142 Ollapally, D.: America's war on terrorism in Southern Asia: political and military dilemmas. - S. 143-156 Addicott, J. F.: The role of special operations forces in the war on terror. - S. 157-179 Davis, J.: The war on terrorism: impact on Al Qaeda. - S. 181-220