| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910155310303321 |
|
|
Autore |
De Keersmaeker Goedele |
|
|
Titolo |
Polarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory [[electronic resource] ] : Post-Cold War and the 19th Century Compared / / by Goedele De Keersmaeker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Cham : , : Springer International Publishing : , : Imprint : Palgrave Macmillan, , 2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edizione |
[1st ed. 2017.] |
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (XI, 247 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Political theory |
International relations |
World politics |
United States—Politics and government |
Europe—Politics and government |
Political Theory |
International Relations |
Political History |
US Politics |
European Politics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Part I: Polarity, Neorealism and its problems -- 1: Introduction, multipolarity and unipolarity after the Cold War -- 2: Polarity: the emergence and development of a concept -- Part II: Polarity in the Cold War, the 19th Century and Today -- 3: The bipolar Cold War and polarity theory -- 4: The 19th Century: multipolar, bipolar or unipolar? -- 5: Polarity after 1990, a historical comparison -- Part III: 19th century balance of power and 21st century multipolarity -- 6: The French multipolarity discourse -- 7: American hegemony, empire and unipolarity -- 8: Polarity, balance of power and universal monarchy -- Part IV: Conclusion, the relevance of polarity theory?. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The book discusses the rise of polarity as a key concept in International Relations Theory. Since the end of the Cold War, until at least the end |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of 2010, there has been a wide consensus shared by American academics, political commentators and policy makers: the world was unipolar and would remain so for some time. By contrast, outside the US, a multipolar interpretation prevailed. This volume explores this contradiction and questions the Neorealist claim that polarity is the central structuring element of the international system. Here, the author analyses different historic eras through a polarity lens, compares the way polarity is used in the French and US public discourses, and through careful examination, reaches the conclusion that polarity terminology as a theoretical concept is highly influenced by the Cold War context in which it emerged. The book is an important resource for students and researchers with a critical approach to Neorealism, and to those interested in the defining shifts the world went through during the last twenty five years. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |