Search

Australia released the newest edition of its Defense White Paper, describing Canberra’s current and emerging national security priorities, on February 25, 2016. This continues a tradition of issuing defense white papers since 1976. This work will examine and analyze the contents of this document as well as previous Australian defense white papers, scholarly literature, and political statements assessing their geopolitical significance. It will also examine public input into Australian defense white papers and the emerging role of social media in this public involvement. It concludes by evaluating whether Australia has the political will and economic resources necessary to fulfill its geopolitical and national security aspirations.

On November 23, 2015 the United Kingdom (UK) released a defense white paper detailing its national security strategic objectives. This work examines the geopolitical, economic, and strategic implications of this document and compares it with recent and historical defense white paper documents issued by the British government. It scrutinizes the text of these documents and relevant scholarly literature analyzing them while also examining the national security threats facing the UK at the time of their issuance and assesses whether the 2015 document will be supported with requisite political will, military personnel, and financial support to carry out its objectives

« Thucydides said that society disintegrates when men no longer agree even on the terms of discourse. » (Gary Wills in New York Review of Books, 18 juillet 1991, p. 20). La presse écrite a été, tout au long de l’histoire du peuple américain, étroitement liée à cette histoire. Comme le dit Edwin Emery dans son remarquable ouvrage, The Press and America (1962), la presse et le pays ont toujours existé aux Etats-Unis en constante symbiose, la presse influençant le cours des événements et gagnant...

The word “between,” in the title of this book also occurs in a dozen of its chapter headings to underline a host of Islam's other unavoidable and unenviable choices between “past and present,” “ belief and reality,” “divine law and spirituality,” “secularization and de-secularization,” “modernity and neo-absolutism,” and so on. Bassam Tibi is himself an in-between observer, not merely because he is a naturalized German citizen of Syrian origin who currently resides in the United States, but mainly because he straddles the disciplines of international relations, Middle East studies, anthropology, and sociology. Based on a unique, interdisciplinary grid of social sciences, Tibi's narrative of Islam in the modern world flows with the confidence of a native's account.

Scholars of Middle Eastern studies in the last decade often were preoccupied with two major problems. First, the democratization that has spread over most of the globe seems to have missed the Middle East. Second, there appears to be a growing gap between international relations and comparative politics theory, on the one hand, and Middle East studies, on the other. In seeking to explain why, some point to the highly politicized scholarship that can still be found in Middle East studies. Others argue that the theorists simply have not tried hard enough to fit the special nature of the Middle East into their theoretical models, or that Middle Eastern scholars have not tried hard enough to deal with theory. Two of the three books under review, by Hansen and Heydemann, do a great deal to narrow the gap between theory and reality in the Middle East. The book by Niblock is an example of the kind of highly politicized scholarship that is still found too often in Middle Eastern studies.

The emerging relationship between China and Russia is perhaps the most important force redefining international relations in post-Cold War Asia. In the past five years, Russia and China have built a ""strategic partnership aimed at the 21st century,"" a development that deeply worries some Western observers and puzzles others. In this first comprehensive study of Russian-Chinese relations, Sherman Garnett and a team of 15 U.S., Russian, and Chinese scholars analyze the most important issues posed by the relationship, including cross-border trade, the impact of Russia's center-periphery politics, migration, arms sales, and (mis)perceptions of one another. The book assesses what will be one of the most important relationships, economically and strategically, in the dynamic region stretching from Central Asia to the Far East. It also weighs the prospects for real cooperation between Russia, a severely weakened power, and China, a power on the rise. Contributing authors include Stephen Blank, Sherman Garnett, Vilya Gel'bras, Harry Gelman, Li Jingjie, Michael McFaul, Lu Nanquan, Martha Olcott, Gilbert Rozman, Judith Thornton, Dmitri Trenin, Tamara Troyakova, Galina Vitkovskaya, Alexei Voskressenski, Elizabeth Wishnick, and Zhanna Zayonchkovskaya.

This is a book about bilateral bargaining between countries over economic issues such as trade and finance. As such it is of great interest to economic historians, who often need to understand why countries entered into specific treaties or established certain relations with other countries. However, in some respects it is an uncomfortable book for economists. This is so because the book is written from the point of view of the discipline of International Relations, which, unlike economics, does not have a well-developed theory. The author recognizes this and his objective in the book is precisely to take some first steps towards developing “…a better grounded and more useful theory†(p. 17). He is not after something similar to game theory or other formal models that economists have already developed. He reviews this literature, and although he recognizes its many strengths, he has strong reservations about the rationality assumption and the many simplifications that are necessary to make the models tractable. Under such circumstances it turns out that outcomes are determined by background conditions, that is, the parameters of the model, and therefore negotiation ends up having no role. That is, whichever economic diplomat a country sends to negotiate a treaty would reach the same end result.

When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, as the Vietnam conflict was escalating, I took Stanley Hoffmann's mesmeriz- ing course, "Causes of War." I thought back to this class as I read Cynthia Enloe's book, which deserves all the superla- tives it has accrued. The experience of reading now and remembering back left me wondering: Without Enloe to consult (her first book on militarism and gender came out in the early 1980s), what were we missing in Hoffmann's class? The answer, I think, is this: We could understand well enough the contending theories about why nations go to war; but in the absence of Enloe, we were less able to ask how militaries could manage such massive mobilizations that required the often calamitous sacrifice of precious lives even for wars whose purposes seemed remote or unconvincing.