Search

Copyright of Jurnal Ekonomi Manajemen Sistem Informasi (JEMSI) is the property of Dinasti Publisher 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.)

This article examines the impact of the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2020–2021 on Anglo-American relations using a chronological approach. It argues that this period represented a deviation from the transactional norm in the relationship—an exchange of support and advice for capability. In the case of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, from the initial American deal with the Taliban to the evacuations, London and Washington clashed over what to do and how best to do it due to differing interests, yet the overall relationship survived. There are three implications. First, the special relationship is transactional, but when the exchange of benefits ceases due to diverging interests, disputes occur until the exchange is restored. Second, the relationship survived despite the claims to the contrary. Third, the relationship appears to be more important to London than Washington. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atomic energy has played an important role in international relations as a means of state power. From 1945 to 1959, Japan was significantly influenced by developments in atomic energy as a result of the Anglo-American "special relationship." During World War II, Britain and the United States cooperated to develop atomic weapons to use against Japan. In the ensuing Cold War era, the two countries advanced peaceful uses of atomic energy for Japan to counter the influence of the Soviet Union through psychological warfare. The U.S. Atomic Energy Peace Mission visited Japan in May 1955. However, the Japanese government altered its nuclear policy to solicit support from Britain because the United States was falling behind in atomic energy development. A British nuclear reactor was used as the first commercial nuclear power station, in 1959, whereby Britain earned parity with the United States in the context of nuclear power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines American Israeli relations since the establishment of the state in 1948 to the present. It presents a combination of historical and theoretical analysis. It uses the concept of 'special relationship' to analyse major issues in the evolution of bilateral relations including US support for Israel's independence, Arab-Israeli wars, Palestinian terrorism, mediation, peace agreements, foreign aid, public opinion, attitudes of American Jews and a look at the future. The article reveals strong strategic ties between the two allies but also cracks that threaten to damage the special relationship, including the loss of bipartisanship support, new strategic priorities in US foreign policy, political polarisation, distancing among American Jews, demographic changes, and effects of the 2023 judicial reform in Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At a time of renewed power struggles among nations, especially with the rise of China and Russia, the UK’s loss of leverage as a key player in the European Union following Brexit makes its relationship with the United States more crucial than ever before. That relationship, which is traditionally conceptualised as being ‘special’, undergirds international relations discourses in media spaces and political and academic communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing on news coverage by the New York Times and The Guardian (UK) newspapers, this article explores how the media frame the UK–US relationship against the backdrop of Brexit. The discussion is predicated on the understanding that important sources of information can influence not only people’s perceptions but also how they think about an issue. The study concludes that while a special relationship is still a contested notion, a resilient and abiding alliance between the two countries is alleviating the impact of Brexit.

At a time of renewed power struggles among nations, especially with the rise of China and Russia, the UK's loss of leverage as a key player in the European Union following Brexit makes its relationship with the United States more crucial than ever before. That relationship, which is traditionally conceptualised as being 'special', undergirds international relations discourses in media spaces and political and academic communities on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing on news coverage by the New York Times and The Guardian (UK) newspapers, this article explores how the media frame the UK-US relationship against the backdrop of Brexit. The discussion is predicated on the understanding that important sources of information can influence not only people's perceptions but also how they think about an issue. The study concludes that while a special relationship is still a contested notion, a resilient and abiding alliance between the two countries is alleviating the impact of Brexit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes US-UK voting cohesion in the United Nations General Assembly in 2001 – 2019 based on the annual lists of important votes drawn up by the US Department of State. Voting cohesion in the UNGA demonstrates the level of support for US policies in this representative international forum. Since most UNGA resolutions are not binding, countries have more room for maneuver compared to voting in the UN Security Council. Washington pays close attention to other countries’ voting behavior in the UNGA, especially when it comes to Israel-related issues. Whereas the Anglo-American Special Relationship has been extensively studied with the focus on the military and political aspects, US-UK interaction in international organizations, especially in the UN, deserves greater attention. Both countries use their permanent membership of the Security Council to promote their interests. Nevertheless, US-UK voting cohesion in the UNGA has not attracted much attention yet, although it can help to objectively assess the interaction of these powers in the world arena. Four groups of important resolutions were identified for comparison: human rights, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nuclear non-proliferation and international security, as well as sanctions and development. In 2001 – 2019 U.S.-UK voting cohesion on important resolutions was relatively high. Nevertheless, under Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump it was lower than during Barack Obama’s presidency. Despite the special relationship, the UK often aligns itself with the EU countries when voting in the UNGA. We paid special attention to resolutions on which the countries diverged, although Washington did not vote in complete isolation. U.S.-UK cohesion was higher on non-proliferation and human rights. At the same time, there were differences regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and development, especially in those cases when the US and the EU disagreed. Divergences were apparent when the US was prone to act unilaterally.

Copyright of Athenaeum: Polskie Studia Politologiczne is the property of Faculty of Political Science & Security Studies Nicolaus Copernicus University 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.)

WWII and its consequences served to bring a new era of extensive cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States, leading to the birth of the AngloAmerican special relationship (AASR). However, the two countries' global widespread interests led to inevitable conflicts of interest, mostly favoring the US. Here, the question arises: Why did postwar Britain maintain its attachment to the AASR in times of conflicting interest with America? The paper, motivated by Gidden's definition of ontological security, discusses that the consequences of WWII not only generated for the UK physical security concerns, but also ontological insecurity. In this respect, postwar Britain, accepting an inferior role, sought a special relationship with the US to consolidate this mutual partnership in order to mitigate its ontological insecurity in the postwar world order. The paper then, by investigating two cases of British-American conflicting interests in Iran, and raising a material-ideational debate, aims to identify the advantages of ontological security theory in explaining Britain's "mechanism of tolerance" in preserving the AASR. Otherwise stated, through the proposed conceptual framework, the paper explores the way in which ontological security needs shape the postwar UK's behaviors to prioritize its close relations with the US, regardless of the costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding their asymmetry in size and power, Singapore and the People’s Republic of China enjoy a “special relationship” based on cultural affinity and close economic interdependency. The city-state was also a model of development for its giant neighbor after the latter abandoned Maoist autarchy and embarked on the road of reform. But their ties are also awkward because Singapore is strategically close to the US superpower which views a rising and rivaling China with suspicion. Singapore’s relations with Beijing may become even more awkward during an uncertain power transition in East Asia amid the bitter Sino-US decoupling over trade, technology, finance and human talent.

The article seeks to assess to what extent the Trump presidency damaged the Anglo-American special relationship. By drawing on a theoretical framework that is broader than much of the existing literature, this article argues that the Trump presidency inflicted largely short-term damage on the special relationship. Though common interests, common sentiments and mutual utility between the US and the UK were weakened in the Trump era, the institutionalized underpinnings of the special relationship were sufficiently robust to withstand the corrosive effects of the 'Trump doctrine'. While President Biden cannot undo the negative impact of Brexit on the UK's utility to the US, the early period of his presidency has witnessed the special relationship's rapid recovery from most of the damage inflicted by the Trump presidency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding their asymmetry in size and power, Singapore and the People's Republic of China enjoy a "special relationship" based on cultural affinity and close economic interdependency. The city-state was also a model of development for its giant neighbor after the latter abandoned Maoist autarchy and embarked on the road of reform. But their ties are also awkward because Singapore is strategically close to the US superpower which views a rising and rivaling China with suspicion. Singapore's relations with Beijing may become even more awkward during an uncertain power transition in East Asia amid the bitter Sino-US decoupling over trade, technology, finance and human talent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the impact of Brexit on the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. Throughout preceding decades, this relationship was marked by stability and unprecedented high level of political, military, economic and financial cooperation. On the basis of quantitative analysis of the U.S. and British databases of international treaties, the authors provide a comparative analysis of the dynamic of bilateral relationship between the two countries from 1940 to 2017, as well as of their relations with the leading European powers — France and Germany. The authors also examine a wide range of agreements which laid a formal basis for the special relationship in such spheres as military and technical cooperation as a whole and nuclear cooperation in particular, intelligence, trade, taxation, scientific and industrial cooperation. It is concluded that this extensive treaty framework renders bilateral relations more coherent and stable, but at the same time it reveals their asymmetric nature which made the United Kingdom follow the U.S. foreign policy strategy. However, the analysis of bilateral relations in the context of the British withdrawal from the EU allowed the authors to shed a new light on the essence and the prospects for the special relationship. The authors conclude that, in the medium-term, military and economic cooperation will continue since it is based on the objective interests of both sides. The U.S. needs British military bases and investment while the UK needs American technologies, especially in the nuclear sphere, and investment alike. Simultaneously, one cannot exclude changes in the longer term. The United States as the leader of the Western world expect Great Britain not only to follow its policy but to support it, i.a. by maintaining a high level of military spending. In turn, the UK new foreign policy, articulated in Global Britain strategy, may come into conflict with the U.S. interests while lack of military spending can diminish the UK role in ensuring transatlantic security. This may have a negative impact on the bilateral dialogue.

Since World War II U.S.–UK relations, despite occasional ups and downs, have been characterized by an unprecedented level of mutual trust and cooperation. The official and academic discourse adopted the phrase ‘the special relationship’ to describe this phenomenon. In the post-Cold War period, Tony Blair’s foreign policy apparently gave it a new impetus. Nevertheless, its controversial results along with certain developments in the 2010s have called for a reassessment of the alliance. Moreover, skepticism has been growing about the future of the Anglo-American Special Relationship (AASR) since the start of the Brexit talks after the 2016 EU membership referendum and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, given his determination to review the principles underpinning U.S. cooperation with its European allies. The paper examines the current state and the future of the AASR. Based on a large body of academic literature, the first section focuses on the main approaches to defining the special relationship and determining the reasons behind its emergence as well as its role and importance for both countries. The author aligns herself with those researchers who attribute the durability of Anglo-American cooperation to the high level of institutionalization in the defense, intelligence and nuclear spheres. The second section examines the expert and political discourse on the current state and the future of the AASR in the 2010s as well as its media coverage. Particular attention is paid to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee’s reports on UK–U.S. relations and the Report of the Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot report). As for the current state of the special relationship, the author stresses that the potential decrease in British military capabilities, Britain’s joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Brexit have caused concern in the U.S., but this unique and enduring alliance will remain important for both countries in the coming years. Despite some speculations on the UK’s diminishing power, the United States needs its military and intelligence capabilities as well as diplomacy to project power in the key regions of the world.

This article characterises the US-Colombia Partnership (USCP) by comparing it to the U.S.-U.K. Special Relationship (USUKSR). For this purpose, both dyads are graded within Lake's typology of international hierarchies. Then Xu's three minimum criteria for SRs - and a fourth criterion derived from Harnisch - are applied to the USCP, with references to the USUKSR. In the security dimension, the USCP could be graded as a weak (soft) protectorate under Plan Colombia, and it might be still today. The USUKSR is seen heading toward a weak protectorate due to Britain's even closer post-Brexit alignment to the U.S. (by launching an Indo-Pacific tilt, clinching the AUKUS pact, and helping to broker a broader anti-China coalition, while remaining the staunchest NATO ally). In the economic dimension, the USUKSR until recently could be rated as market exchange, but now it has been approaching an economic zone (as Britain is courting America for more trade and investment, while shedding Huawei, shelving a bilateral FTA with China, and seeking CPTPP accession). The USCP classifies as an economic zone, since the U.S. is still Colombia's largest export market and preferred investor, and Colombia has been very cautious with China (refraining from an FTA, and from joining the BRI). The USCP (by combining a weak protectorate with an economic zone) is rated as an informal empire, while the USUKSR may be close to it. The USCP is unlikely to become an SR, because U.S. substituted Colombian governance functions are focused on domestic security, and the U.S. public does not judge Colombia positively, and is far from regarding it as an ally. The paper ends with a note on the dominant partner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Where does the United States fit into global histories of modern empire? This essay contends that A.G. Hopkins's depiction of nineteenth century America as the modern world's first postcolonial polity not only imaginatively advances the project of globalising U.S. history, it also reveals the ongoing significance of America to the expansion and development of the British Empire itself. Viewing the British Empire through its deep and diverse connections to postcolonial America underscores the integration, dynamism, power, and vulnerability of the British imperial system in its Victorian heyday. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Relações Internacionais is the property of Relacoes Internacionais 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.)

Currently U.S.-UK cooperation in the UN does no attract as much attention as it deserves. Despite a conspicuous disparity in the countries’ military and economic might, they have maintained close ties for more than seventy years, which inevitably affects their position in the UN. The allies’ role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq cast suspicion on their activities in the organization. In the early 21st century, the UN itself was faced with a number of challenges, such as terrorism and regional conflicts; U.S. frustration with its effectiveness led to some reform efforts.Covering the years 2001 – 2017, the article consists of three parts. The first part focuses on quantitative and qualitative parameters determining the U.S.’s and the UK’s roles in the UN and compares their approaches to it. The second part discusses the activity of American and British permanent representatives to the UN, based on their memoirs and interviews. The third part analyses some examples of cooperation and competition in the UN. The list of examples is illustrative rather than comprehensive given the existence of the special relationship.The analysis of U.S.-UK cooperation in the UN reveals its ambiguous nature, but it does not serve to debunk the myth of the special relationship. The cooperation is largely pragmatic.

The Conservative Heath government dropped the term special relationship from the vernacular of Anglo-American relations. Britain's usefulness to the US was in question, too, epitomised in the April 1975 Wall Street Journal headline of 'Goodbye Great Britain'. Yet the succeeding Wilson and Callaghan Labour governments were determined to revive Anglo-American relations. This article argues they achieved more to this end than hitherto acknowledged through how they managed Anglo-American relations. Particular attention is drawn to resetting the tone of relations, strategies of engagement of American officials to control fallout from British retrenchment and a discursive modernisation of the special relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing integration of cultural analyses stands out as one of the most notable contemporary movements in international and diplomatic history. The 'cultural turn' in these fields has made it evident that the analysis of cultural artefacts, identities, and representations has much to teach us about the ways states behave in the international system, as well as how cultural factors contribute to the conditions of alliance or enmity between nations. However, while the long-running and complex connections between Britain and America have always offered innumerable opportunities to explore the power of culture to shape their relationship, the 'cultural turn' did not begin in our field. Rather, it emerged from other disciplines of history and anthropology, and its subsequent impact on the study of Anglo-American relations has been noticeably uneven. US-UK relations in the 20th century have received somewhat less attention from cultural specialists than have those of earlier periods, and the role of culture in the post-1940 Anglo-American special relationship has been consistently underexplored in favour of more traditional methods of historical analysis. This article first addresses how the cultural turn has influenced the study of the overall historical relationship between America and Britain. The second section narrows the scope of enquiry to address how the cultural turn has affected the study of the special relationship in particular. A brief conclusion section offers a few thoughts on the need for and potential directions of future studies targeting the intersection of Anglo-American cultural sharing and US-UK partnership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a selective bibliographical survey of the literature on Anglo-American relations over the last fity years. It demonstrates continuity in the preoccupation with the contentious nature of the relationship and in particular whether or not it was ever special, but also that scholars have broadened the net cast in order to understand things better. That has resulted in more attention being paid to what one might argue underlies the relationship—culture, intellectual history and social, economic and personal interactions which are often neglected by more traditional forms of enquiry that focus on power and diplomatic relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mark Murphy has argued that the relationship between a creator and their creatures is not a special relationship that generates new moral obligations for the creator. Murphy's position is grounded, in part, on his claim that there are no good arguments to the contrary and that the creator-creature relationship (at least in the case of God) is not a relationship between equals. I argue that there are good reasons to think that a creator and creature being equals is not required for such an obligation. I offer an argument for such an obligation based on the moral significance of thrusting upon sentient or rational beings significant, unsought, and wholly new circumstances. More specifically, I argue that it is reasonable to conclude that a creator enters into a duty-generating special relationship with their creatures to promote their creatures' well-being, when (1) the creator is the voluntary source of the creatures' wholly new and unconsented to circumstances from which to flourish or languish and (2) it would cost the creator virtually nothing to promote the creatures' welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares U.S. and UK approaches to concluding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, given the special relationship between Washington and London. The article is based on official statements and reports as well as the debate in the media. Concluding TTIP was a priority for both U.S. President B. Obama and British Prime Minister D. Cameron. The trade agreement is both economic and political in nature. Geopolitically, the agreement may strengthen the role of the West in setting standards in global trade. U.S. and UK approaches were close when it came to the elimination of tariffs and further liberalization of non-tariff barriers. The U.S. was interested in accessing the EU procurement market; nevertheless, the British were more cautious in estimating the possibility of gaining access to U.S. procurement. Initially, the countries diverged on financial services regulation, with the U.S. being against its inclusion in TTIP. Officially, both countries supported including the ISDS mechanism in TTIP. The Brexit victory in the UK and Donald Trump’s election in the U.S. have made the prospects of TTIP even more uncertain. Thus, it is necessary to continue exploring the U.S.-UK approaches to a Transatlantic FTA. If concluded, a future bilateral agreement between the UK and the U.S. might inherit some features of TTIP regarding trade liberalization, eliminating non-tariff barriers and the investment protection mechanism, as the interests of the U.S. and the UK elites converge on many of these issues.