Contemporary civilisational analysis has emerged in the post-Cold War period as a forming but already controversial field of scholarship. This book focuses on the scholarship produced in this field since the 1970s. It begins with anthropological axioms posited by Ibn Khaldun, Simon Bolivar and George Pachymeres. Three conceptual images of civilisations are prominent in the field. First, civilisations are conceived as socio-cultural units, entities or blocs in an 'integrationist' image. They emerge out of long-term uneven historical processes. Finally, in a 'relational' image civilisations are believed to gain definition and institute developmental patterns through inter-societal and inter-cultural encounters. The book traces the history of semantic developments of the notions of 'civilisation' and 'civilisations' coextensive with the expansion of Europe's empires and consubstantial with colonialism. Early modernities are more important in the long formation of capitalism. Outlining the conceptual framework of inter-civilisational engagement, the book analytically plots the ties instituted by human imaginaries across four dimensions of inter-civilisational engagement. It also interrogates the relationship between oceans, seas and civilisations. Oceanian civilisation exhibits patterns of deep engagement and connection. Though damaged, Pacific cultures have invoked their own counter-imaginary in closer proximity to past islander experiences. Collective memory provides resources for coping with critical issues. The book also explores Latin American and Japanese experiences that shed light on the engagement of civilisations, applying the model of inter-civilisational engagement to modern perspectives in culture and the arts, politics, theology and political economy.
The volume explores a question that sheds light on the contested, but largely cooperative, nature of Arctic governance in the post-Cold War period: How do power relations matter – and how have they mattered – in shaping cross-border cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic? Through carefully selected case studies – from Russia’s role in the Arctic Council to the diplomacy of indigenous peoples’ organisations – this book seeks to shed light on how power performances are enacted constantly to shore up Arctic cooperation in key ways. The conceptually driven nature of the enquiry makes the book appropriate reading for courses in international relations and political geography, while the carefully selected case studies lend themselves to courses on Arctic politics.
regional multilateralism. The region must be on the
brink of a new cold war (a common media representation) or saturated
with warm, comprehensive cooperation (a counter-representation by
Arctic states, including Russia).
This book avoids testing the outer extremes of these ‘either/or’ dichotomies about the cross-border politics of the Arctic. Rather, the volume
seeks to pose and explore a question that sheds light on the contested,
but largely cooperative, nature of Arctic governance in the post-ColdWarperiod: how have and how do relations of power matter in
from one another. In any
one section about a particular actor, nearly all of the other actor groups
required mention in order to deliver a sensible account of key trends and
events. In the post-ColdWarperiod of cooperation, the actor picture
becomes even more interconnected in fascinating ways, and the power
relations involved in these interconnections is a topic that the subsequent
chapters explore. We see indigenous organisations and states seeking to
‘sing from the same songsheet’ to maximise their success, businesses
hammering out regulations to be ratified by
place that the UN’s evolving approach to conflict involves a
number of normative changes in addition to the several empirical changes
which have been the subject of much scholarly research in the post-ColdWarperiod. More importantly, it suggests that this evolving approach
indicates a deeper and gradual, though highly obscured, normative shift
that gives the UN a new institutional meaning, a new raison
respectively). 60 Having been deployed between the armed forces of the
belligerent states, their main, and perhaps sole, function was to
supervise an agreed-upon cease-fire and deter any possible breaches of
it. 61 The
great majority of UN peacekeeping operations, especially in (but not
limited to) the post-ColdWarperiod, on the other hand, had more
ambitious mandates. Moreover, these operations
Implicit in the superpower mentality was the normative
support for the idea that other states should sacrifice their
sovereignty for a ‘greater common good’. This normative
attitude may be seen as paving the way for the
‘interventionist’ normative prescriptions of the post-ColdWarperiod. The Cold War had systematised and, to a degree,
‘legitimised’ such contradiction as was inherent in
East] to the European Union not only as partners in its external relations but also
for the stability and security of our continent and its immediate neighbourhood.
The European Union both has a special responsibility and is in a special position
to work in close partnership with all of its neighbours to achieve these objectives.
Security In the post-ColdWarperiod, a number of violent conflicts have
broken out on the EU’s periphery – in the former Soviet Union, south-eastern
Europe and Algeria. The EU has not dealt with these crises very
targeted? The preferences of other CIS states will no
doubt continue to be mixed, but an underlying wariness about a new
regional hegemon will confront any Russian action. More than a decade
after the Soviet collapse, the long-term regional security implications of
Russian power contraction have yet to be determined fully. Uncertainty also
surrounds Russia’s role in twenty-first-century Eurasia. Developments of the
post-ColdWarperiod reveal a constancy in the Russian leadership’s commitment to a Eurasian leadership position. The dynamic 1990s and early 2000s
services and infrastructure. The democratic aspirations
that came with the end of the Cold War were shattered by wars and crises. The
wars of the post-ColdWarperiod in Africa should be seen in the longer patterns
of Africa’s relations with the world as well as with its own history.
The problem is that the view of peacebuilding and its actors as external to
this history maintains a vision of issues in a country like the DRC as endogenous.
This partial view ends up primarily focusing on the format rather than on the
content. It targets so-called neopatrimonialism and