En savoir plus
Zusatztext Ripsman and Paul debunk loose generalizations about globalization's effects on the state and security policy. States today neither spend less on defense nor fight fewer wars than in less globalized eras. Globalization's effects, to the extent they exist, are not universal. The authors argue persuasively that states are the masters rather than victims of the process of globalization. Informationen zum Autor Norrin Ripsman is Associate Professor of Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal.T.V. Paul is James McGill Professor of International Relations at McGill University. Klappentext In the past two decades, many have posited a correlation between the spread of globalization and the decline of the nation-state. Moreover, such scholars have maintained that the increasing interdependence between countries means that nations are no longer the sole providers of their territorial security. They point to the increasing role of transnational institutions, NGOs, and regional security agreements role in national defense. In Globalization and the National Security State, T.V. Paul and Norrin Ripsman argue that this thesis has not been borne out by events. Despite the effects of globalization, weak and powerful states have continued to pursue traditional nation-state security strategies. Zusammenfassung In the past two decades, many have posited a correlation between the spread of globalization and the decline of the nation-state. In the realm of national security, advocates of the globalization thesis have argued that states' power has diminished relative to transnational governmental institutions, NGOs, and transnational capitalism. Initially, they pointed to declines in both global military spending (which has risen dramatically in recent years) and interstate war. But are these trends really indicative of the decline of nation-state's role as a guarantor of national security? In Globalization and the National Security State, T.V. Paul and Norrin Ripsman test the proposition against the available evidence and find that the globalization school has largely gotten it wrong. The decline in interstate warfare can largely be attributed to the end of the Cold War, not globalization. Moreover, great powers (the US, China, and Russia) continue to pursue traditional nation-state strategies. Regional security arrangements like the EU and ASEAN have not achieved much, and weak states - the ones most impacted by the turmoil generated by globalization - are far more traditional in their approaches to national security, preferring to rely on their own resources rather than those of regional and transnational institutions. This is a bold argument, and Paul and Ripsman amass a considerable amount of evidence for their claims. It cuts against a major movement in international relations scholarship, and is sure to generate controversy. Inhaltsverzeichnis List of Tables Acknowledgments Introduction: National Security State in the Era of Globalization 1.: Globalization and National Security: Key Propositions 2.: The Global Security Environment 3.: The Major Powers 4.: States in Stable Regions 5.: States in Regions of Enduring Rivalry 6.: Weak and Failing States Conclusion: State Adaptation to a Changed Global Environment Select Bibliography ...
