List price
EUR €159.00USD $191.00
Browse results
A Small Neutral State’s Visions of Modern War
Series:
History of Warfare, Volume: 140
Total War was the core concept around which military thought revolved during the interwar period. Total War was also a multifaceted, confusing concept that affected both civilian and military life. How did small states conceive of their place in such a destructive war? Did they close their eyes, relying on international law to protect them, or did they seek creative solutions?
This book examines how Dutch officers, in the shadow of three great powers, considered their military future, analysing the impact of European military ideas on a small state. This approach offers a new perspective on interwar dealing with assumptions about a new world war.
This book examines how Dutch officers, in the shadow of three great powers, considered their military future, analysing the impact of European military ideas on a small state. This approach offers a new perspective on interwar dealing with assumptions about a new world war.
A Small Neutral State’s Visions of Modern War
Series:
History of Warfare, Volume: 140
Total War was the core concept around which military thought revolved during the interwar period. Total War was also a multifaceted, confusing concept that affected both civilian and military life. How did small states conceive of their place in such a destructive war? Did they close their eyes, relying on international law to protect them, or did they seek creative solutions?
This book examines how Dutch officers, in the shadow of three great powers, considered their military future, analysing the impact of European military ideas on a small state. This approach offers a new perspective on interwar dealing with assumptions about a new world war.
This book examines how Dutch officers, in the shadow of three great powers, considered their military future, analysing the impact of European military ideas on a small state. This approach offers a new perspective on interwar dealing with assumptions about a new world war.
A Cultural Cartography of Empire
Commissioned by the Qianlong emperor in 1751, the Qing Imperial Illustrations of Tributary Peoples (Huang Qing zhigong tu 皇清職貢圖), is a captivating work of art and ideological statement of universal rule. Best understood as a cultural cartography of empire, the captivating artwork paired with ethnographic texts helps us to understand the complexity of Chinese diplomatic relations as well the ideological force behind them which was rooted in both dynastic history and the specifics of Qing rule.
A Cultural Cartography of Empire
Commissioned by the Qianlong emperor in 1751, the Qing Imperial Illustrations of Tributary Peoples (Huang Qing zhigong tu 皇清職貢圖), is a captivating work of art and ideological statement of universal rule. Best understood as a cultural cartography of empire, the captivating artwork paired with ethnographic texts helps us to understand the complexity of Chinese diplomatic relations as well the ideological force behind them which was rooted in both dynastic history and the specifics of Qing rule.
Abstract
Recent years have seen the rapid descent of relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (prc). Hopes for cooperation in places of common concern like climate change gave way to strains in almost all areas. In place of “engagement,” the administration of Donald J. Trump adopted a tougher approach of “strategic competition” that its successor so far has continued. This article explores the relationship between the demise of engagement and opinions coming from the American China expert community. Specifically, it questions the impact on engagement of five secular dynamics that these China authorities have experienced—generational turnover; the field’s vast expansion and diversification; increased disciplinary specialization; the enhanced prominence of the generalist in national security discussions in place of China specialists; and changes in the media leading to more skeptical journalistic voices on U.S.-prc relations. Without over-emphasizing either the influence of the expert community on U.S. decision-making, or underplaying the more repressive and authoritarian actions of the Chinese Communist Party, this article suggests that the China expert community has been more of a factor in the end of engagement than current accounts of academics and commentators acknowledge.
During 2021, the International Security Studies Forum (
For a generation before the 2008 global financial crisis, Sino-U.S. relations were premised on a modus vivendi of détente. While neither of the two great powers ever was willing to sacrifice its own geopolitical interests, the larger framework guiding the relationship was one of pragmatic cooperation and issue management. That shared understanding has helped keep Asia generally stable since 1979, the last time the region experienced an interstate war. But by 2016, President Barack Obama’s final year in office, the Pentagon had begun prioritizing great power war as the next big paradigm. Washington’s think tank industry had churned out piles
The War in Vietnam ended in 1975. In 1978, the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (
The war itself has produced an enormous literature, but only now are scholars giving serious attention to the history of the reconciliation process. Two recent books pave the
Kimberly D. McKee’s
Abstract
The People’s Republic of China has confronted the United States with diplomatic challenges ever since Washington recognized Beijing in January 1979. Basic to this engagement was and continues to be economics, and particularly trade, which elicited American responses ranging from enmity, fear, and uncertainty to cooperation, amity, and hope. Scholarship has not focused enough attention on the ideals and values that undergirded commercial relations as the principal American approach to China. Beginning with President Richard M. Nixon’s opening to Beijing and ending with President Donald J. Trump’s trade war (with touchstones in the Nixon, George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton, Barack Obama, and Trump years), this article analyzes how a bilateral trading relationship that so transformed the world evolved from recognition to rivalry. The answer to the wax and wane lies in the near-century long practice of American free-trade internationalism that followed the principles of the “capitalist peace” paradigm, long embraced by the United States as a pillar of its foreign policy.