LEADER 01153cam0-22003611i-450- 001 990000844190403321 005 20060220141429.0 035 $a000084419 035 $aFED01000084419 035 $a(Aleph)000084419FED01 035 $a000084419 100 $a20020821d1966----km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $aeng 102 $aUS 105 $ay-------001yy 200 1 $aLinear partial differential equations with constant coefficients$eexistence, approximation, and regularity of solutions$fFrançois Trèves 210 $aNew York$cGordon and Breach$d1966 215 $aX, 534 p.$d24 cm 225 1 $aMathematics and its applications$v6 610 0 $aEquazioni differenziali alle derivate parziali 610 0 $aEquazioni differenziali ed integrali 676 $a515.353 676 $a519 700 1$aTreves,$bFrançois$f<1930- >$0424171 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990000844190403321 952 $a02 32 E 9$b2466$fFINBN 952 $aMX-B-43$b1934$fMAS 959 $aFINBN 959 $aMAS 996 $aLinear partial differential equations with constant coefficients$982338 997 $aUNINA LEADER 00874nam0-22003011i-450- 001 990003288120403321 005 20001010 035 $a000328812 035 $aFED01000328812 035 $a(Aleph)000328812FED01 035 $a000328812 100 $a20000920d1916----km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $aita 105 $ay-------001yy 200 1 $aMEMORIE PER SERVIRE ALLA DESCRIZIONE DELLA CARTA GEOLOGICA D'ITALIA 210 $aFirenze$cBarbera$d1916 215 $app. 109 + tavole 610 0 $aDicotiledoni Fossili 676 $a021.051 710 02$aReale comitato geologico d'Italia$0376830 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990003288120403321 952 $a021.051.COM.09$b5509$fDECGE 959 $aDECGE 996 $aMEMORIE PER SERVIRE ALLA DESCRIZIONE DELLA CARTA GEOLOGICA D'ITALIA$9445779 997 $aUNINA DB $aING01 LEADER 04392nam 2200721 450 001 9910465648103321 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 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$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 $a9910465648103321 996 $aIn the Hegemon's shadow$91472017 997 $aUNINA