it will operate. The choices in the field of
internationalrelations are global, regional, statal, societal and
individual. The novel paradigm selects the state, still the predominant
level of analysis within the field ( Carlo, 1998 ). 6 How then do we define the state?
The state has three components: territory, society and regime ( Halliday, 1987 ). 7 Each of these
components of the state can be the target of threats
internationalrelations. In other
words, the necessary space had been created to deal more flexibly with
relatively ‘secondary’ social issues, which were
nevertheless institutionalised in the Charter.
The superpowers had endorsed the primacy of state
sovereignty as a requirement of their coexistence. The (neo)colonial
powers had given their utmost support to the principle, for intervention
U NTIL THE LATE 1980s, internationalrelations theory had a
rather crude attitude towards normative research in general. Although,
after decades of neglect, norms had finally found their way into
mainstream internationalrelations through the study of institutions in
the early 1980s, the realist and liberal ‘paradigms’ of
internationalrelations, and for that matter, their ‘neo
result of intrinsically opposed political cultures or a new political divide
reflecting a ‘clash of civilisations’.5 The key variable affecting the dynamic
and form of multilateralism in Eurasia is divergent state interests.
The security dilemma
Security dilemmas stem from the assumption that the international system
is based on self-help and comprised of states with an egoist definition of interest. In the absence of a global leviathan, internationalrelations are
inevitably anarchic. States will eventually position themselves in an offensive or defensive
an international–local contention, and not only has this reified the binaries that
were meant to be surpassed, but the ‘locals’ have been depoliticised by locating
their agency of resistance in a vague account of local culture, rather than in
power relations along class, gender and race lines. Culture is a source of resistance, but it has to be explained and linked to the material and symbolic underpinnings of power relations. Additionally, despite this turn being underpinned
by everyday theorists such as Michel de Certeau and James Scott, much of this
village-related interests. The problem is that the power of governments,
international organisations and members of privileged classes is not comparable
to that of peasants, street sellers and members of popular classes. It is this
element that has to be embedded into accounts of resistance and analysed.
A second implication is that placing subjecthood and agency on subordinated individuals and collectives historicises relations of domination. Though
the different wars have had a great impact, subordination has a longer history.
This history reflects the social and
plan together within an integrated civil-military
command structure like NATO, the greater the likelihood of peaceful internationalrelations. Moreover, by introducing states to western models of
civil-military relations, NATO might help to stabilise weak post-Soviet states
throughout eastern Europe and Eurasia – even those states that would not
eventually seek NATO membership. Such a design required significant building-block initiatives to proceed in earnest and develop institutionally. NATO
represented the ideal institution through which to promote this goal
. The Black Sea region is a
connecting point with Europe and Central Asia owing to institutional and
geopolitical links. This unique geopolitical context suggests that the Black
Sea states constitute an interesting paradigm of cooperation and conflict in
the international system.
In the early 1990s, the newly emergent states in the Black Sea area
arrived at the fundamental understanding that an institutionalisation of
their relations at a regional level would do much to promote their security.
Eleven countries in the Black Sea region responded to a Turkish initiative
Water scarcity, the 1980s’ Palestinian uprising and implications for peace
examine the linkage between resource scarcity and violent conflict and
to understand the relationship between the politics of scarcity and
internationalrelations ( Homer-Dixon, 1999 ; Homer-Dixon and Levy, 1996 ).
Water scarcity is a pivotal environmental security issue.
Fresh, renewable water is a precious resource today in much of South
Asia, northern China, parts of Africa and in the Middle East. These
bilateral relations with FSU states. Moscow
has used both military and trade arrangements to reassert its interests in
Nationalism has continued to be widespread throughout the area of the
FSU and it has further invigorated post-Soviet concerns over national autonomy.2 States once dominated by Moscow have pursued various bilateral and
multilateral means to consolidate their sovereignty, lessen their economic
and security dependence on Russia, and integrate into the mainstream
global system. All of these states face the reality of geographical location and