India and Global Governance

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Poorvi Chitalkar ◽  
David M. Malone
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
First Century ◽  
Climate Change Negotiations ◽  
Economic Diplomacy ◽  
Meaningful Participation ◽  
Tremendous Progress ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

India’s engagement with the institutions and norms of global governance has evolved significantly since independence in 1947. This chapter traces the evolution—beginning with early engagement with international organizations under Nehru, to the waning of its enthusiasm for multilateralism in the 1960s and 1970s, and its struggle for greater voice and recognition internationally in the twenty-first century. Through the prism of its quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, its approach to climate change negotiations, global economic diplomacy, and its engagement with global norms, this chapter traces India’s rise as a vital player in the rebalancing of international relations in a multipolar world. However, despite its tremendous progress, some ongoing challenges continue to constrain India’s meaningful participation in global governance at times. The chapter concludes with an assessment of India’s contribution to global governance and its prospects as a stakeholder and shareholder on the global stage.

Conclusion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela E. Pennock
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Identity ◽  
First Century ◽  
Arab Americans ◽  
Arab American ◽  
Muslim Americans ◽  
Politics And Culture ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

As we approach the third decade of the twenty-first century, the United States continues to wrestle with defining its role in Middle East conflicts and fully accepting and fairly treating Arab and Muslim Americans. In this contentious and often ill-informed climate, it is crucial to appreciate the struggles, priorities, and accomplishments of Arab Americans over the past several decades, both what has set them apart and what has integrated them into the politics and culture of the United States. Arab American organizing in the environment of minority rights movements in the 1960s and 1970s fostered a heightened consciousness of and pride in Arab American identity....

Status in International Relations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Renshon
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Identity Theory ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Status Inconsistency ◽  
Collective Beliefs ◽  
The Subject ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Different Strains ◽  
Status Position

Scholars from disparate traditions in political science and international relations (IR) agree that status—standing or rank in a hierarchy—is a critical element of international politics. It has three critical attributes—it is positional, perceptual, and social—that combine to make any actor’s status position a function of the higher-order, collective beliefs of a given community of actors. The term is commonly used in two ways. The first refers to status in its most purely positional sense: standing, an actor’s rank or position in a hierarchy. “Status community” is defined as a hierarchy composed of the group of actors that a state perceives itself as being in competition with. “Rank” is one’s ordinal position and is determined by the collective beliefs of members of that community. Status has long been a focus of IR scholars, dating back to (at least) the beginning of the “scientific study of international relations” that developed in the 1960s. Since then, two different strains of work—status inconsistency theory and social identity theory—have provided the basic theoretical scaffolding for much of the empirical research done since then. After the initial wave of research in the 1960s and 1970s, IR scholars seemingly moved on from the subject for a few decades. However, recent years have seen a renaissance in the study of status, with novel work being done across methodological and epistemological boundaries.

scholarly journals A Brief History of Social Movements in North America

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
CASIS
Keyword(s):  
Social Movements ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
First Century ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Fifth Generation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

The purpose of this analysis is to differentiate social movements. In this instance, we will be using the hippie/counterculture movements during the 1960s and 1970s in Canada, and those that are occurring in the second decade of the twenty-first century. In particular, this analysis distinguishes right-wing extremist movements in 2016 from groups like the Hippie Movement and the Black Panther Party Movement. Specific reference will be made to contrast the social movements of the twenty-first century that are non-political in nature but are identity-based, versus movements during the 60s and 70s that were political by design and intent. Due to the non-political nature of twenty-first century Violent Transnational Social Movements, they might be characterized as fifth generation warfare, which we identify as identity-based social movements in violent conflict with other identity based social movements, this violence may be soft or hard. ‘Soft violence damages the fabric of relationships between communities as entrenches or highlights the superiority of one group over another without kinetic impact. Soft violence is harmful activities to others which stops short of physical violence’. (Kelshall, 2019) Hard violence is then recognized as when soft violence tactics result in physical violence. Insurgencies are groups that challenge and/or resist the authority of the state. There are different levels of insurgencies; and on the extreme end, there is the resistance of systemic authority.

Asian International Students at U.S. Universities in the Post-2008 Collapse Era

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Wu
Keyword(s):  
International Students ◽  
Asian American ◽  
American Studies ◽  
First Century ◽  
Asian American Studies ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Asian International Students ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

Chapter 12 addresses the ways in which Asian American Studies’ overriding insistence on recovering a useable resistant past via the aforementioned rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s has made it troublingly reluctant to examine relevant accommodation. As the title suggests, Wu considers how the intellectual trajectory of the field, dominated by a limited U.S.-centrism, has proved largely ineffective with regard to the twenty-first century influx of international students from Asian countries at U.S. universities.

Whence and W(h)ither Technology Ethics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Howard
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
First Century ◽  
Environmental Crisis ◽  
Technology Ethics ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Moral Valence

Will there be a future for technology ethics as a respected academic discipline among philosophers, scientists, engineers, and the general public? We hope that the answer is, “Yes.” But for that to be so, the field must undertake a frank assessment of its historical origins in Heidegger’s ideology-laden, technology critique and in the environmental crisis of the 1960s and 1970s, along with the nuclear arms race and protests against newer technologies of war deployed in Vietnam. Moreover, technology ethics for the twenty-first century will thrive and will have an impact on technologists and policymakers only if it finds its way to complement its traditional emphasis on risk with an analytical framework that foregrounds the promotion of the human and the common good independent of received assumptions about the moral valence of technology, itself.

Ethics of coexistence: the international theory of Terry Nardin

1988 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Debt Crisis ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
The South ◽  
International Theory ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

Normative international theory addresses the moral dimension of international society and the logic of ‘ought’ statements in international relations. The traditional content of normative international theory has been dominated by such issues as: the nature of international law and the moral basis of the rights and duties it imposes on states and individuals; the ethics of pacifism and the theory of the 6just war’ the morality of intervention; and, most fundamentally, the nature of the ethical requirements that need to be met if a system of inter-state relations can justly be characterized as an ‘international society’. While such issues have never disappeared from academic study, the dominant modes of international relations theorizing in the 1960s and 1970s—whether realist, neo-realist, pluralist or structuralist—were at one, if for different reasons? in keeping them at the bottom of the agenda paper. And yet, the 1980s has seen a revival of normative international theory. The reasons for this renewal of interest are two-fold. On the one hand, the traditional agenda of normative theory, as outlined above, has never lost its salience in the real world even if unfashionable in academia; since it is in the nature of fashions to change some sort of revival of interest in the old questions was to be expected. But of rather more importance has been the emergence of a new range of normative issues: demands from the ‘south’ for a New International Economic Order have placed the politics of redistribution on the international agenda for the first time—revisionist states in the 1980s no longer make territorial demands but appeal to status quo oriented states to make concessions on the basis of economic justice. In today's world normative statements are as likely to be about the debt crisis as they are to be about the conduct of the Gulf War or the US intervention in Grenada. Mainstream international relations theory has generally refused to ask or answer moral questions, but this strategy of avoidance has not succeeded. Questions such as ‘what ought to be our attitude to poverty in the South?’ or ‘how ought the world' financial system respond to the debt problems of Brazil or Zambia?’ cannot be wished away—as anyone who has taught international political economy will be well aware. Normative theory cannot answer questions like this but it can help each individual to provide his or her own response—and no more important task exists for the discipline of international relations.

scholarly journals Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry L. Hench ◽  
Ian Thompson
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
First Century ◽  
Bone Biomechanics ◽  
Bioactive Materials ◽  
Toxic Response ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Living Tissues

During the 1960s and 1970s, a first generation of materials was specially developed for use inside the human body. These developments became the basis for the field of biomaterials. The devices made from biomaterials are called prostheses. Professor Bill Bonfield was one of the first to recognize the importance of understanding the mechanical properties of tissues, especially bone, in order to achieve reliable skeletal prostheses. His research was one of the pioneering efforts to understand the interaction of biomaterials with living tissues. The goal of all early biomaterials was to ‘achieve a suitable combination of physical properties to match those of the replaced tissue with a minimal toxic response in the host’. By 1980, there were more than 50 implanted prostheses in clinical use made from 40 different materials. At that time, more than three million prosthetic parts were being implanted in patients worldwide each year. A common feature of most of the 40 materials was biological ‘inertness’. Almost all materials used in the body were single-phase materials. Most implant materials were adaptations of already existing commercial materials with higher levels of purity to eliminate release of toxic by-products and minimize corrosion. This article is a tribute to Bill Bonfield's pioneering efforts in the field of bone biomechanics, biomaterials and interdisciplinary research. It is also a brief summary of the evolution of bioactive materials and the opportunities for tailoring the composition, texture and surface chemistry of them to meet five important challenges for the twenty-first century.

scholarly journals Georges Perec and the Significance of the Insignificant

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Highmore
Keyword(s):  
First Century ◽  
Georges Perec ◽  
Central Aspect ◽  
Historical Specificity ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Central Claim

Georges Perec died in 1982 at the age of forty-five. What is he for us now, thirty-three years later, in the second decade of the twenty-first century? How do we make him our contemporary? To make Perec’s work part of our present-day involves (perhaps counter-intuitively) grasping his project in its historical specificity. It isn’t by cherry-picking useable aspects of the work that we will ensure some relevance to its afterlife: rather, it will be by recognising his larger project as a response to a particular historical situation. While Perec’s situation in the 1960s and 1970s in France is not ours, it still has a relation to our world. Perec becomes our contemporary in the act of seeing these relations, how a continuity of feeling and mood percolates through historical ruptures, and how changes in mood and feeling activate historical continuities. The central claim of this chapter is that a central aspect of Perec’s project was the latter’s attempt to register actuality, that is, that this project was a form of realism. Moreover, like many forms of realism, it was a quest and a question rather than an answer or solution.

The Institutions of International Society

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tonny Brems Knudsen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
International Society ◽  
English School ◽  
The Subject ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Primary Institutions ◽  
Hedley Bull

The “fundamental” or “primary” institutions of international society, among them sovereignty, diplomacy, international law, great power management, the balance of power, trade, and environmental stewardship, have been eagerly discussed and researched in the discipline of international relations (IR), at the theoretical, meta-theoretical, and empirical levels. Generations of scholars associated with not only the English School, but also liberalism and constructivism, have engaged with the “institutions of international society,” as they were originally called by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull in their attempt to develop a historically and sociologically informed theory of international relations. The fact that intense historical, theoretical, and empirical investigations have uncovered new institutional layers, dynamics, and complexities, and thus opened new challenging questions rather than settling the matter is part of its attraction. In the 1960s and 1970s, the early exponents of the English School theorized fundamental institutions as historical pillars of contemporary international society and its element of order. At the turn of the 21st century, this work was picked up by Kal Holsti and Barry Buzan, who initiated a renaissance of English School institutionalism, which specified the institutional levels of international society and discussed possibilities for institutional change. Meanwhile, liberal and constructivist scholars made important contributions on fundamental institutions in key engagements with English School theory on the subject in the late 1980s. These contributions and engagements have informed the most recent wave of (interdisciplinary) scholarship on the subject, which has theorized the room for fundamental institutional change and the role of international organizations in relation to the fundamental institutions of international society.

From Memorization to Inspiration: Teaching Paleobiology in the Twenty-First Century

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Donald R. Prothero
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Population Variation ◽  
First Century ◽  
Basic Information ◽  
Old Field ◽  
Idiographic Approach ◽  
Nomothetic Approach ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Stratigraphic Ranges ◽  
The 1960S

For most of the twentieth century, paleontology instruction focused on memorization of taxa, morphology, and stratigraphic ranges. Consequently, paleontology got the reputation as a boring, stagnant, musty old field with this “idiographic” approach that focused on details at the expense of the broader implications. The “Paleobiology Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s radically changed paleontological pedagogy. New generations of paleontologists who were weaned on the 1972 Raup and Stanley textbook (which had no systematic coverage of invertebrates) adopted a more dynamic, “law-like” or “nomothetic” approach. The emphasis on ideas, concepts, and controversies over memorization of names and dates makes paleontology far more interesting and relevant to geology majors, most of whom will not become paleontologists and will not need huge numbers of names to do their jobs. However, paleontology instructors still must include basic information about the major phyla of fossils or else the theoretical ideas lack any reference in reality. My own approach mixes both theoretical and systematic concepts, with lectures on major topics (taphonomy, ontogeny, population variation, speciation, micro and macroevolution, extinction, paleoecology, biogeography, functional morphology) alternating with lectures supplementing lab exercises.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document