LEADER 00763nam0-22003011i-450- 001 990003272200403321 005 20031126165157.0 035 $a000327220 035 $aFED01000327220 035 $a(Aleph)000327220FED01 035 $a000327220 100 $a20030910d1967----km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $aeng 105 $ay-------001yy 200 1 $aMalta blu-water Island$fGarry Hogg 205 $a1nd ed. 210 $aLondon$cAllen and Unwin$d1967 215 $a248 p. 610 0 $aMalta 676 $a945.85 700 1$aHogg,$bGarry$0130171 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990003272200403321 952 $a094.000.HOG$b2109$fDECGE 959 $aDECGE 996 $aMalta blu-water Island$9451615 997 $aUNINA LEADER 01349nam a22003615i 4500 001 991002258359707536 007 cr nn 008mamaa 008 100907s2010 de | s |||| 0|eng d 020 $a9783642146060 035 $ab1414606x-39ule_inst 040 $aBibl. Dip.le Aggr. Matematica e Fisica - Sez. Matematica$beng 082 04$a515.2433$223 084 $aAMS 42B35 084 $aAMS 46E35 084 $aAMS 47G30 100 1 $aYuan, Wen$0478948 245 10$aMorrey and Campanato Meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel$h[e-book] /$cby Wen Yuan, Winfried Sickel, Dachun Yang 260 $aBerlin :$bSpringer,$c2010 300 $a1 online resource (xi, 281 p.) 440 0$aLecture Notes in Mathematics,$x0075-8434 ;$v2005 650 0$aMathematics 650 0$aFourier analysis 650 0$aFunctional analysis 650 0$aOperator theory 700 1 $aSickel, Winfried$eauthor$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$0509445 700 1 $aYang, Dachun 773 0 $aSpringer eBooks 856 40$uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14606-0$zAn electronic book accessible through the World Wide Web 907 $a.b1414606x$b03-03-22$c05-09-13 912 $a991002258359707536 996 $aMorrey and Campanato Meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel$91443189 997 $aUNISALENTO 998 $ale013$b05-09-13$cm$d@ $e-$feng$gde $h0$i0 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$dİ2016 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