Search

Copyright of Études Caribéennes is the property of Etudes Caribeennes and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent decades, several sociologists have moved beyond grand theories of international relations, and empirically examined the motivations of US foreign policy leading into the 21st century. This article discusses the work of three political sociologists who have examined US foreign policy from three prominent perspectives: Michael Mann, William Robinson, and Julian Go. Working from a neo-Weberian perspective, Mann highlights the rise of neoconservatism within the US government that has encouraged foreign expansion. From a neo-Marxist perspective, Robinson emphasizes the importance of transnational capitalist class interests, including the promotion of neoliberal policies, on US foreign policy. And working from a world-systems perspective, Go underscores how the US is a hegemon in decline attempting to regain its imperial footing through military aggression. While these researchers cover much ground and raise important questions, their perspectives also contain several blindspots that future work on issues of US foreign policy could address. Most importantly, these three theoretical perspectives have neglected the importance of ideology in making sense of contemporary US foreign policy, and this article argues that future work should more intensively examine how ideology influences foreign policymaking in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mainstream understandings of nation-state development focus primarily on economic factors, consequently rendering invisible other viable ways, through which important development occurs in African societies. In extending the current theoretical framework beyond its focus on economics to encompass political, human capital and technological development, this article provides evidence linking African Americans to African attempts at development, first in Ethiopia, which remained uncolonised until 1938 and then through Ghana, which became the first sub-Saharan African nation to gain its independence from British colonial rule. The resulting theoretical payoff includes a broadened concept of development, which much more accurately represents and predicts reality. Empirically, the findings offer much-needed insight about the relationship, correspondence and differences between African historical Diaspora in the United States and more recent migration movements from African countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Foro Internacional is the property of El Colegio de Mexico AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Foro Internacional is the property of El Colegio de Mexico AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Foro Internacional is the property of El Colegio de Mexico AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Dans cet article, l’auteur étudie la façon dont se sont comportés les Européens lors de la crise irakienne et, dans ce contexte, cherche à cerner les contours d’une éventuelle identité européenne. En 2002/2003, le conflit a agi comme un révélateur et a laissé apparaître d’importantes convergences dans la manière dont les opinions publiques européennes ont appréhendé la question de l’intervention militaire, le rapport aux Etats‐Unis et le rôle de l’Union européenne sur la scène internationale. On ne peut certes avancer que les Européens se caractérisent par une culture diplomatique et stratégique commune, d’une part parce que les élites politiques ont pris des positions opposées, d’autre part parce que la période étudiée est trop brève pour en juger. Cependant, si l’on se réfère à un sentiment minimal d’appartenance commun et au partage de critères d’interprétation identiques, il semble qu’on puisse identifier en Europe les éléments d’une sphère publique en voie d’émergence. In this article the author examines the Europeans’ behaviour during the Iraq crisis and attempts to sketch European identity in this context. The conflict of 2002/2003 revealed how European public opinion apprehended the question of military intervention, relations to the United States and the role of the European Union on an international scale. It certainly can not be affirmed that Europeans are united in diplomatic and strategic policies, as, on the one hand, the political elite was at odds with itself and as, on the other, too short a period of time was analyzed in the article to be conclusive on this issue. However, elements of an emerging European public sphere can be discerned when referring to a minimal spirit of togetherness and to the sharing of identical criteria of interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]