Pub Date : 2023-11-06DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2270899
Exequiel Lacovsky
During the Cold War, nuclear weapon states outsourced their nuclear testing programmes to their hinterlands or overseas territories. Countries such as the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), France and the Soviet Union conducted more than 750 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, Australia, the Algerian Sahara, French Polynesia and Kazakhstan, respectively. In these cases, nuclear activities did not go unchallenged as they affected people’s health and the environment. To different extents, nuclear testing met with opposition from local, regional and international actors. A comparative perspective on anti-nuclear movements – in different regions and time frameworks – that struggled against nuclear colonialism in the form of nuclear testing highlights the impact left by anti-nuclear movements in the Global South, which is relevant to discussions on how the non-proliferation regime is structured today.
{"title":"Opposing Nuclear Weapons Testing in the Global South: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"Exequiel Lacovsky","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2023.2270899","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2270899","url":null,"abstract":"During the Cold War, nuclear weapon states outsourced their nuclear testing programmes to their hinterlands or overseas territories. Countries such as the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), France and the Soviet Union conducted more than 750 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, Australia, the Algerian Sahara, French Polynesia and Kazakhstan, respectively. In these cases, nuclear activities did not go unchallenged as they affected people’s health and the environment. To different extents, nuclear testing met with opposition from local, regional and international actors. A comparative perspective on anti-nuclear movements – in different regions and time frameworks – that struggled against nuclear colonialism in the form of nuclear testing highlights the impact left by anti-nuclear movements in the Global South, which is relevant to discussions on how the non-proliferation regime is structured today.","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135679096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-06DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2273852
Riccardo Alcaro
Between 2003 and 2022, European Union policy towards Iran was the result of continuous course corrections made by EU institutions and member states to dodge internal disagreements and navigate the agitated waters of a region – the Middle East and the Gulf – mired in multipolar competition and beset by fragmented governance arrangements. A comprehensive review of official documents, relevant literature and interviews conducted with Iranian and European officials and experts demonstrates that a combination of prioritisation, compartmentalisation and multilateralisation kept EU foreign and security policy towards Iran on a fairly proactive and coherent course for almost twenty years. However, the forces unleashed by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and more recently by Iran’s collusion in Russia’s war on Ukraine as well as the turmoil inside the Islamic Republic itself put the limits of the EU’s capacity to mitigate the effects of geopolitical rivalries, Middle Eastern fragmentation and intra-EU contestation on its Iran policy in sharp relief.
{"title":"Weathering the Geopolitical Storms: The Ever-elusive Success of EU Policy towards Iran","authors":"Riccardo Alcaro","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2023.2273852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2273852","url":null,"abstract":"Between 2003 and 2022, European Union policy towards Iran was the result of continuous course corrections made by EU institutions and member states to dodge internal disagreements and navigate the agitated waters of a region – the Middle East and the Gulf – mired in multipolar competition and beset by fragmented governance arrangements. A comprehensive review of official documents, relevant literature and interviews conducted with Iranian and European officials and experts demonstrates that a combination of prioritisation, compartmentalisation and multilateralisation kept EU foreign and security policy towards Iran on a fairly proactive and coherent course for almost twenty years. However, the forces unleashed by the United States’ withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal and more recently by Iran’s collusion in Russia’s war on Ukraine as well as the turmoil inside the Islamic Republic itself put the limits of the EU’s capacity to mitigate the effects of geopolitical rivalries, Middle Eastern fragmentation and intra-EU contestation on its Iran policy in sharp relief.","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135589831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2263350
Emanuela Bozzini, Daniela Sicurelli
ABSTRACTThe European Union (EU) emerged as an agenda-setter in the World Health Organization (WHO) negotiations for a Pandemic Treaty. However, rather than endorsing the EU proposal of a binding treaty, the negotiators agreed upon a two-track process, aimed both at negotiating a Framework Convention and revising existing WHO regulations. Why did the EU achieve only partial results in the ongoing negotiations? Concerns for the defence of national sovereignty and uncertainties around its potential to effectively deliver equal access to health resources informed the position of states that vetoed the EU’s proposal. Furthermore, the EU’s principled preference for international treaties, despite the crisis of multilateral governance, has demonstrated lack of flexibility in the way the EU addresses global challenges. Instead of streamlining WHO operations, the two-track process is expected to increase the complexity of the organisation’s response to future pandemics.KEYWORDS: World Health OrganizationEuropean UnionPandemic Treatynormative power AcknowledgementsThe authors express their gratitude to Marco Pertile, Irene Landini and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the article.Notes1 A review of PT definitions goes beyond the scope of this paper. See George and Bennet Citation2005; Beach and Pedersen Citation2013; Blatter and Haverland (Citation2014).2 In detail: 74th World Health Assembly (May 2021), World Health Assembly Special Session (November 2021); 1st INB meeting (March 2022); 75th World Health Assembly (May 2022); 2nd INB meeting (July 2022); 3rd INB meeting (November 2022).3 Article 2 of the WHO's constitution provides a detailed list of its competences and establishes that it shall “act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work”. See: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf.4 The non-EU signatory countries were: Fiji, Britain, Rwanda, Kenya, Korea, Chile, Costa Rica, Albania, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Senegal, Norway, Serbia, Indonesia and Ukraine. The EU signatory countries were Portugal, Italy, Romania, France, Germany, Greece, Croatia, the Netherlands and Spain.5 See: https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-fourth-world-health-assembly.6 Other areas were: nomenclature of diseases, standards for diagnostic procedures, standards for and advertising and labelling of biological and pharmaceutical products in international commerce.7 A special WHA session was convened on the premature death of the WHO Director-General, Dr Lee Jong-wook, to facilitate the procedure to elect the next Director-General.Additional informationFundingResearch for this article was carried out within the 2020_Covid 19 project, funded by the University of Trento, “L’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità nell’emergenza Covid-19: funzioni, limiti e impatto sul territorio”.Notes on contributorsEmanuela BozziniEmanuela Bozzini is Professor of Political So
摘要欧盟(EU)在世界卫生组织(WHO)大流行条约谈判中成为议程制定者。然而，谈判代表没有赞同欧盟提出的一项具有约束力的条约，而是商定了一个双轨进程，旨在谈判一项框架公约和修订现有的世卫组织条例。为什么欧盟在正在进行的谈判中只取得了部分成果?对捍卫国家主权的关切以及其能否有效提供平等获得卫生资源的不确定性，决定了否决欧盟提案的国家的立场。此外，尽管面临多边治理的危机，但欧盟对国际条约的原则性偏好表明，欧盟应对全球挑战的方式缺乏灵活性。这种双轨程序预计将增加世卫组织应对未来大流行的复杂性，而不是简化世卫组织的业务。作者感谢Marco Pertile、Irene Landini和两位匿名审稿人对本文提出的有见地的评论。注1对PT定义的回顾超出了本文的范围。参见《乔治与班纳特引文》2005;Beach and Pedersen Citation2013;布拉特和哈弗兰(Citation2014) 2详情:第七十四届世界卫生大会(2021年5月)、世界卫生大会特别会议(2021年11月);第一次INB会议(2022年3月);第七十五届世界卫生大会(2022年5月);第二次INB会议(2022年7月);国际货币基金组织第三次会议(2022年11月)世卫组织组织法第2条详细列出了其职权范围，并规定世卫组织应“作为国际卫生工作的指导和协调机构”。见:https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf.4非欧盟签署国为:斐济、英国、卢旺达、肯尼亚、韩国、智利、哥斯达黎加、阿尔巴尼亚、南非、特立尼达和多巴哥、突尼斯、塞内加尔、挪威、塞尔维亚、印度尼西亚和乌克兰。欧盟签署国为葡萄牙、意大利、罗马尼亚、法国、德国、希腊、克罗地亚、荷兰和西班牙。5见:https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-fourth-world-health-assembly.6其他领域为:疾病命名法、诊断程序标准、国际商业中生物和医药产品的标准、广告和标签就世卫组织总干事李钟郁博士过早死亡召开了一次世界卫生大会特别会议，以促进选举下一任总干事的程序。本文的研究是在特伦托大学资助的2020_Covid -19项目中进行的，该项目名为“L 'Organizzazione Mondiale della sanit 'emergenza Covid-19: funzioni, limite impatto sul territorio”。作者简介:emanuela Bozzini，意大利特伦托大学政治社会学教授。daniela Sicurelli，意大利特伦托大学政治学教授。
{"title":"Oops! … EU Did It Again! The EU’s Preference for Global Treaties <i>vis-a-vis</i> the Reality of WHO Politics","authors":"Emanuela Bozzini, Daniela Sicurelli","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2023.2263350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2263350","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe European Union (EU) emerged as an agenda-setter in the World Health Organization (WHO) negotiations for a Pandemic Treaty. However, rather than endorsing the EU proposal of a binding treaty, the negotiators agreed upon a two-track process, aimed both at negotiating a Framework Convention and revising existing WHO regulations. Why did the EU achieve only partial results in the ongoing negotiations? Concerns for the defence of national sovereignty and uncertainties around its potential to effectively deliver equal access to health resources informed the position of states that vetoed the EU’s proposal. Furthermore, the EU’s principled preference for international treaties, despite the crisis of multilateral governance, has demonstrated lack of flexibility in the way the EU addresses global challenges. Instead of streamlining WHO operations, the two-track process is expected to increase the complexity of the organisation’s response to future pandemics.KEYWORDS: World Health OrganizationEuropean UnionPandemic Treatynormative power AcknowledgementsThe authors express their gratitude to Marco Pertile, Irene Landini and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the article.Notes1 A review of PT definitions goes beyond the scope of this paper. See George and Bennet Citation2005; Beach and Pedersen Citation2013; Blatter and Haverland (Citation2014).2 In detail: 74th World Health Assembly (May 2021), World Health Assembly Special Session (November 2021); 1st INB meeting (March 2022); 75th World Health Assembly (May 2022); 2nd INB meeting (July 2022); 3rd INB meeting (November 2022).3 Article 2 of the WHO's constitution provides a detailed list of its competences and establishes that it shall “act as the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work”. See: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf.4 The non-EU signatory countries were: Fiji, Britain, Rwanda, Kenya, Korea, Chile, Costa Rica, Albania, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Senegal, Norway, Serbia, Indonesia and Ukraine. The EU signatory countries were Portugal, Italy, Romania, France, Germany, Greece, Croatia, the Netherlands and Spain.5 See: https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/seventy-fourth-world-health-assembly.6 Other areas were: nomenclature of diseases, standards for diagnostic procedures, standards for and advertising and labelling of biological and pharmaceutical products in international commerce.7 A special WHA session was convened on the premature death of the WHO Director-General, Dr Lee Jong-wook, to facilitate the procedure to elect the next Director-General.Additional informationFundingResearch for this article was carried out within the 2020_Covid 19 project, funded by the University of Trento, “L’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità nell’emergenza Covid-19: funzioni, limiti e impatto sul territorio”.Notes on contributorsEmanuela BozziniEmanuela Bozzini is Professor of Political So","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136097960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-25DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2023.2253728
Magdalena Lisińska
ABSTRACTWhy is the Falklands/Malvinas case so prominent in the Argentine political narrative? Why is it almost absent in Britain? How can Britain afford to ignore United Nations General Assembly Resolutions calling for negotiations without the risk of being ostracised by the international community? The key to understanding the dispute lies in looking beyond material factors and examining the ideas behind the actions of the two actors involved. The Falklands/Malvinas case can thus be better examined as an identity dispute; a constructivist analysis highlights how the impasse between Britain and Argentina is the result of their different perceptions of the history of the islands, the international legal principles that apply to the case and the role Britain plays in the world system. Such diverging perceptions, in turn, prevent the parties from settling the dispute.KEYWORDS: Falkland IslandsIslas Malvinasconstructivismidentity AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal for their valuable comments which helped to improve the paper.Notes1 The terms ‘South Atlantic War’ and ‘Falklands/Malvinas War’ are used interchangeably to refer to the 1982 armed conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom.2 As Tony Ingesson (Citation2009, 15) notes, in a bipolar international system, a country planning a war must take into account the attitudes of the two superpowers. Indeed, in the face of the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas operation, Argentine military officials sought US neutrality. However, when President Ronald Reagan called his Argentine counterpart, General Leopoldo Galtieri, on the eve of the military operation, the latter failed to heed Reagan's warnings that the US could not support Argentina in a possible armed invasion of the islands (Clark Citation1982, 276-81)3 Anthony Cary, the 5th Viscount Falkland (1656-94) was a treasurer of the Navy from 1681 to 1689. He sponsored the South Atlantic expedition led by John Strong which landed in the islands in 1690.4 French explorers established their colony of Port St Luis on the East Falkland Island in 1764. However, in 1766, under a treaty between France and Spain, the French agreed to leave the South Atlantic and cede territory to the Spanish, who claimed the islands as their own. The Spanish took formal control of Port St Louis in 1767 and renamed the settlement Puerto Soledad.5 Indigenismo was a socio-political and cultural movement that called for the inclusion of indigenous peoples in nation-building projects. It emerged in Latin America at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in Mexico and Peru.6 An expression of the two countries' dichotomous approach to the sovereignty issue is the existence of competing publications presenting the British and Argentine interpretations, respectively. In 2008 and 2012, British authors Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper published two online articles outlining Britain's rights to the islands. The respo
{"title":"The Falklands/Malvinas as an Identity Dispute: A Constructivist Analysis of the British and Argentinian Positions","authors":"Magdalena Lisińska","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2023.2253728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2023.2253728","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTWhy is the Falklands/Malvinas case so prominent in the Argentine political narrative? Why is it almost absent in Britain? How can Britain afford to ignore United Nations General Assembly Resolutions calling for negotiations without the risk of being ostracised by the international community? The key to understanding the dispute lies in looking beyond material factors and examining the ideas behind the actions of the two actors involved. The Falklands/Malvinas case can thus be better examined as an identity dispute; a constructivist analysis highlights how the impasse between Britain and Argentina is the result of their different perceptions of the history of the islands, the international legal principles that apply to the case and the role Britain plays in the world system. Such diverging perceptions, in turn, prevent the parties from settling the dispute.KEYWORDS: Falkland IslandsIslas Malvinasconstructivismidentity AcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal for their valuable comments which helped to improve the paper.Notes1 The terms ‘South Atlantic War’ and ‘Falklands/Malvinas War’ are used interchangeably to refer to the 1982 armed conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom.2 As Tony Ingesson (Citation2009, 15) notes, in a bipolar international system, a country planning a war must take into account the attitudes of the two superpowers. Indeed, in the face of the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas operation, Argentine military officials sought US neutrality. However, when President Ronald Reagan called his Argentine counterpart, General Leopoldo Galtieri, on the eve of the military operation, the latter failed to heed Reagan's warnings that the US could not support Argentina in a possible armed invasion of the islands (Clark Citation1982, 276-81)3 Anthony Cary, the 5th Viscount Falkland (1656-94) was a treasurer of the Navy from 1681 to 1689. He sponsored the South Atlantic expedition led by John Strong which landed in the islands in 1690.4 French explorers established their colony of Port St Luis on the East Falkland Island in 1764. However, in 1766, under a treaty between France and Spain, the French agreed to leave the South Atlantic and cede territory to the Spanish, who claimed the islands as their own. The Spanish took formal control of Port St Louis in 1767 and renamed the settlement Puerto Soledad.5 Indigenismo was a socio-political and cultural movement that called for the inclusion of indigenous peoples in nation-building projects. It emerged in Latin America at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in Mexico and Peru.6 An expression of the two countries' dichotomous approach to the sovereignty issue is the existence of competing publications presenting the British and Argentine interpretations, respectively. In 2008 and 2012, British authors Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper published two online articles outlining Britain's rights to the islands. The respo","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135858849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-22DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2021.1982293
K. Ulrichsen
Kuwait has developed and earned a reputation as a mediator in regional affairs as leadership-level conceptions of ‘national’ and ‘regime’ security have intersected with pragmatic assessments of the...
{"title":"Kuwait as a Mediator in Regional Affairs: The Gulf Crises of 2014 and 2017","authors":"K. Ulrichsen","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2021.1982293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2021.1982293","url":null,"abstract":"Kuwait has developed and earned a reputation as a mediator in regional affairs as leadership-level conceptions of ‘national’ and ‘regime’ security have intersected with pragmatic assessments of the...","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73662656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2020.1776016
R. Mazza
{"title":"Britain, Zionism and the Nimby Syndrome","authors":"R. Mazza","doi":"10.1080/03932729.2020.1776016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2020.1776016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78628493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1999-10-01DOI: 10.1080/03932729908456889
C. Spencer
{"title":"Partnership‐building in the Mediterranean","authors":"C. Spencer","doi":"10.1080/03932729908456889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729908456889","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79769120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1999-10-01DOI: 10.1080/03932729908456884
Jeffrey Laurenti
{"title":"US reluctance and UN revival","authors":"Jeffrey Laurenti","doi":"10.1080/03932729908456884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729908456884","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75807488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1999-10-01DOI: 10.1080/03932729908456883
Thomas Graham, J. Mendelsohn
{"title":"NATO's nuclear weapons policy and the no‐first‐use option","authors":"Thomas Graham, J. Mendelsohn","doi":"10.1080/03932729908456883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729908456883","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03932729908456883","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72484516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1999-10-01DOI: 10.1080/03932729908456886
Remzi Lani
{"title":"Rugova and the UCK: Chronicle of a shifting balance","authors":"Remzi Lani","doi":"10.1080/03932729908456886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729908456886","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46246,"journal":{"name":"International Spectator","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90411120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：