LEADER 04185nam  22006135  450 
001 9910155310303321
005 20200701161828.0
010   $a3-319-42652-4
024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-319-42652-5
035   $a(CKB)4340000000019485
035   $a(DE-He213)978-3-319-42652-5
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC4759124
035   $a(PPN)259470651
035   $a(EXLCZ)994340000000019485
100   $a20161205d2017      u|             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aurnn|008mamaa
181   $ctxt$2rdacontent
182   $cc$2rdamedia
183   $acr$2rdacarrier
200 10$aPolarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory$b[electronic resource] $ePost-Cold War and the 19th Century Compared /$fby Goedele De Keersmaeker
205   $a1st ed. 2017.
210  1$aCham :$cSpringer International Publishing :$cImprint: Palgrave Macmillan,$d2017.
215   $a1 online resource (XI, 247 p.) 
311   $a3-319-42651-6 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
327   $aPart 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?.
330   $aThe 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.
606   $aPolitical theory
606   $aInternational relations
606   $aWorld politics
606   $aUnited States?Politics and government
606   $aEurope?Politics and government
606   $aPolitical Theory$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911010
606   $aInternational Relations$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/912000
606   $aPolitical History$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911080
606   $aUS Politics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911180
606   $aEuropean Politics$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911130
615  0$aPolitical theory.
615  0$aInternational relations.
615  0$aWorld politics.
615  0$aUnited States?Politics and government.
615  0$aEurope?Politics and government.
615 14$aPolitical Theory.
615 24$aInternational Relations.
615 24$aPolitical History.
615 24$aUS Politics.
615 24$aEuropean Politics.
676   $a320.01
700   $aDe Keersmaeker$b Goedele$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$0865640
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910155310303321
996   $aPolarity, Balance of Power and International Relations Theory$91931916
997   $aUNINA