Suchergebnisse

Derek W. Spring, Russian imperialism in Asia in 1914.
In the decade before 1914 the preferred policy of the Russian government was to maintain its interests in the bordering independent countries in Asia, by indirect means rather than by annexation, political action or further economic involvement by the state. This policy gave increased importance to the development of Russian trade and private enterprise in these countries as a foundation for the protection of Russian political and strategic interests. By 1914 however there was widespread consciousness in Russian government and commercial circles that this policy was failing. The weakness of the foundations of the Russian commercial effort and the prospective loss of geographical advantages, particularly in the Middle East with the advance of the Baghdad Railway, thus faced the Russian government with a dilemma. It became necessary to accept the equalising of conditions of trade and limitations of Russian investment possibilities, with a consequent loss of economic and ultimately political influence. Or political action must be taken, falling short of unproductive annexation, but reserving by artificial means Russian predominance in those areas of political and strategic importance. Government policy was tending towards this latter solution by 1914 in Turkish Armenia, Persia, Mongolia and northern Manchuria in particular.

Building on the argument laid out in our book Incoherent Empire, where we offered a detailed examination of the military, political, economic & ideological powers of the United States, as well as a critique of the new imperialism of the Bush administration, in this article, we refine the argument by surveying the whole course of American Empire throughout the 20th & 21st centuries. We subsequently address the three main sub-types of empire, plus one predominantly non-imperial type of domination: the periods of direct, indirect, & informal empire, & hegemony. These four involve declining levels of violence. After putting the new imperialism in broader context of empires in general & the long-term trajectory of American imperialism in particular we finally analyze the Bush empire. The questions we seek to answer here are: where has the United States fitted into this typology in the past? How far has the administration of Bush the Younger imperially escalated? & will this be successful? Adapted from the source document.

This article, specifically based on 2007 Jasbir Puar's book Terrorist Assemblages, recently but partially translated into French, seeks to stress and put into perspective some new theoretical tools to describe new forms of cultural imperialism. New concepts such as homonationalism and sexual exceptionalism will be analyzed and discussed in the light of recent national and transnational phenomena of the ri new imperialism pi. Through a materialist reading, it will also discuss how homonationalism and American politics of inclusion and exclusion respectively of white queer subjectivities and racialized subjects, especially Arab and/or Muslim (queer or not), are part of a broader struggle for hegemony underlying neoliberal politics of globalized capitalism. There is therefore a new stage of imperialism, which now, and increasingly, uses sexual politics as a strategy of accumulation of capital. Adapted from the source document.

Peter Fitzpatrick développe une théorie sociale inspirée de Foucault. Le droit est considéré comme une force dispersée extérieure et dominant les relations sociales. La force du droit est une métaphore du pouvoir de la connaissance implicite dans l'expression même des Lumières. Cette force est exclusive et répressive. Ce qui est exclu de l'universalité du droit est ce qui contredit le rationnel, c'est-à-dire le crime, la folie et, surtout, ce qui se trouve au-delà des limites de l'Europe, l'indigène et le sauvage.

French edition (Paris, A. Colin, 1923) has title: Limpérialisma économique et les relations internationales pendant le dernier-demi-siècle (1870-1920). ; Bibliography: p. 171-178. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Eric Tagliacozzo
Cet article examine les fils entremêlés de l'hydrologie, de l'innovation technologique et de la coercition impérialiste en Asie du Sud-Est maritime, à la fin de la période coloniale. L'auteur analyse la façon dont les puissances coloniales de la région agirent sur l'espace maritime local de trois points de vue. Premièrement, l'infiltration de bateaux, autochtones et autres, dans la sphère mouvante des espaces maritimes anglais et hollandais, perpétuant des systèmes de commerce et de navigation non réglementés et désormais considérés avec beaucoup de méfiance par les régimes régionaux. Deuxièmement, les efforts des puissances coloniales pour explorer et cartographier ces domaines maritimes, utilisant l'hydrographie pour mieux appréhender les dimensions de leurs empires naissants. Enfin, l'exploitation de ces progrès de la connaissance sur le plan du gouvernement et de la coercition, alors que la Singapour britannique et la Batavia néerlandaise divisaient les mers sud-est asiatiques en royaumes respectifs, que chacune tentait, encore imparfaitement, de contrôler.