株式会社極東書店トップ商品一覧Globalization and the National Security State.

商品詳細

Globalization and the National Security State.

Globalization and the National Security State. グローバル化と安全保障国家

・ISBN 978-0-19-539390-3 cloth US$ 100.00

¥23,430.- (税込) (※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。

お気に入り

・ISBN 978-0-19-539391-0 paper US$ 43.99

¥10,305.- (税込) (※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。

お気に入り

電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-0-19-977683-2

著者・編者Ripsman, Norrin M. / Paul, T. V.,
出版社(Oxford U. Pr., US)
出版年月2010
ページ数296 pp.
言語ENG
ニュース番号<569-1135 569-L216>

解説

In the past two decades, many have posited a correlation between the spread of globalization and the decline of the nation-state. In the realm of national security, advocates of the globalization thesis have argued that states' power has diminished relative to transnational governmental institutions, NGOs, and transnational capitalism. Initially, they pointed to declines in both global military spending (which has risen dramatically in recent years) and interstate war. But are these trends really indicative of the decline of nation-state's role as a guarantor of national security? In Globalization and the National Security State, T.V. Paul and Norrin Ripsman test the proposition against the available evidence and find that the globalization school has largely gotten it wrong. The decline in interstate warfare can largely be attributed to the end of the Cold War, not globalization. Moreover, great powers (the US, China, and Russia) continue to pursue traditional nation-state strategies. Regional security arrangements like the EU and ASEAN have not achieved much, and weak states - the ones most impacted by the turmoil generated by globalization - are far more traditional in their approaches to national security, preferring to rely on their own resources rather than those of regional and transnational institutions. This is a bold argument, and Paul and Ripsman amass a considerable amount of evidence for their claims. It cuts against a major movement in international relations scholarship, and is sure to generate controversy.