LEADER 00777nam0-22002651i-450- 001 990003002810403321 035 $a000300281 035 $aFED01000300281 035 $a(Aleph)000300281FED01 035 $a000300281 100 $a20010918d1997----km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $afre 200 1 $a<>santé communautaire$f[Jean-Michel Longneaux...et al.] 210 $aMons$cService sociale dans le monde$d1997 215 $a128 p.$d20 cm 225 1 $a<>politiques sociales$v1997, nn.1-2 610 0 $aAssistenza sanitaria$aEuropa 700 1$aLongneaux,$bJean-Michel$0118256 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990003002810403321 952 $aPaper$fSES 959 $aSES 996 $aSanté communautaire$9468579 997 $aUNINA LEADER 01166nam0 22003011i 450 001 SUN0015386 005 20060104120000.0 020 $aIT$b88 2240 100 $a20040116e19861919 |0itac50 ba 101 $aita 102 $aIT 105 $a|||| ||||| 200 1 $aˆLe ‰leggi spagnuole nel Regno di Sardegna$fBenvenuto Pitzorno 205 $aRist. anast. dell'ed. di Sassari 1919 210 $aSala Bolognese$cForni$d1986 215 $a128 p.$d22 cm. 606 $aSardegna$xLegislazione$xSec. 14.-18.$2FI$3SUNC007999 606 $aSardegna$xDominazione spagnola$2FI$3SUNC008000 620 $dSala Bolognese$3SUNL000242 676 $a349.46$v21 700 1$aPitzorno$b, Benvenuto$3SUNV011174$0505342 712 $aForni$3SUNV000412$4650 801 $aIT$bSOL$c20181109$gRICA 912 $aSUN0015386 950 $aUFFICIO DI BIBLIOTECA DEL DIPARTIMENTO DI GIURISPRUDENZA$d00 CONS XXIV.Eb.70 $e00 7337 995 $aUFFICIO DI BIBLIOTECA DEL DIPARTIMENTO DI GIURISPRUDENZA$h7337$kCONS XXIV.Eb.70$op$qa 996 $aLeggi spagnuole nel Regno di Sardegna$9806258 997 $aUNICAMPANIA LEADER 04358nam 2200709 450 001 9910798105903321 005 20210430212105.0 010 $a1-5017-0400-1 010 $a1-5017-0401-X 024 7 $a10.7591/9781501704017 035 $a(CKB)3710000000656711 035 $a(EBL)4526405 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001669060 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)16461345 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001669060 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)13152453 035 $a(PQKB)10799911 035 $a(StDuBDS)EDZ0001510559 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4526405 035 $a(OCoLC)948756554 035 $a(MdBmJHUP)muse51409 035 $a(DE-B1597)478506 035 $a(OCoLC)979905765 035 $a(DE-B1597)9781501704017 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL4526405 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr11248721 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL951832 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000656711 100 $a20160904h20162016 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|nu---|u||u 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aIn the Hegemon's shadow $eleading states and the rise of regional powers /$fEvan Braden Montgomery 210 1$aIthaca, New York ;$aLondon, [England] :$cCornell University Press,$d2016. 210 4$d©2016 215 $a1 online resource (216 p.) 225 1 $aCornell Studies in Security Affairs 300 $aIncludes index. 311 0 $a1-5017-0234-3 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $tFront matter --$tContents --$tAcknowledgments --$tIntroduction: The Puzzle of Regional Power Shifts --$t1. How Leading States Respond to Rising Regional Powers --$t2. Egypt's Bid for Mastery of the Middle East, 1831-1841 --$t3. The Confederacy's Quest for Intervention and Independence, 1861-1862 --$t4. Japan and the Creation of a New Order in East Asia, 1894-1902 --$t5. India's Rise and the Struggle for South Asia, 1962-1971 --$t6. The Emergence of Iraq and the Competition to Control the Gulf, 1979-1991 --$tConclusion: The Past and Future of Rising Regional Powers --$tNotes --$tIndex 330 $aThe relationship between established powers and emerging powers is one of the most important topics in world politics. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated how the leading state in the international system responds to rising powers in peripheral regions-actors that are not yet and might never become great powers but that are still increasing their strength, extending their influence, and trying to reorder their corner of the world. In the Hegemon's Shadow fills this gap. Evan Braden Montgomery draws on different strands of realist theory to develop a novel framework that explains why leading states have accommodated some rising regional powers but opposed others. Montgomery examines the interaction between two factors: the type of local order that a leading state prefers and the type of local power shift that appears to be taking place. The first captures a leading state's main interest in a peripheral region and serves as the baseline for its evaluation of any changes in the status quo. Would the leading state like to see a balance of power rather than a preponderance of power, does it favor primacy over parity instead, or is it impartial between these alternatives? The second indicates how a local power shift is likely to unfold. In particular, which regional order is an emerging power trying to create and does a leading state expect it to succeed? Montgomery tests his arguments by analyzing Great Britain's efforts to manage the rise of Egypt, the Confederacy, and Japan during the nineteenth century and the United States' efforts to manage the emergence of India and Iraq during the twentieth century. 410 0$aCornell studies in security affairs. 606 $aHegemony 606 $aGreat powers$xForeign relations 606 $aGreat powers$xHistory$y19th century 606 $aGreat powers$xHistory$y20th century 615 0$aHegemony. 615 0$aGreat powers$xForeign relations. 615 0$aGreat powers$xHistory 615 0$aGreat powers$xHistory 676 $a327.114 700 $aMontgomery$b Evan Braden$0741507 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910798105903321 996 $aIn the Hegemon's shadow$91472017 997 $aUNINA