Israel-Egypt Agreements of 1974–1975 in the Context of Regional and International Relations: A New Perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
Alek Epstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sinai Peninsula ◽  
Jewish State ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
New Perspective

After the October 1973 War president Sadat had come to realize the United States alone could lead to an Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupying during the June 1967 War. For although the Soviet Union supplied Egypt with the desirable types and amounts of weapons, Moscow had no impact on Israeli policy. US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saw the United States gaining clout in the Middle East while pushing the Soviet Union out of the region. Kissinger succeeded to bring about the signing of two separation of forces agreements between Israel and Egypt, in January 1974 and in September 1975; the second Disengagement Agreement even placed American troops in the Sinai Peninsula to monitor the demilitarized zones established between the two countries. In both cases the United States had resorted to exerting pressure on the Israeli government lead by Golda Meir (in 1974) and Yitzhak Rabin (in 1975) by denying financial aid and holding no discussions on weapon transactions. Neither in 1974 nor in 1975 president Sadat was willing to recognize Israel or to sign a peace agreement with the Jewish state. In fact, he was involved in a “step-by-step peace process” with the United States rather than with Israel. American administration had no doubt that Israel would have no choice but “to pay the bills”, whatever they would be.

Trust, but Verify

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
East West

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.

KYRGYZ - US RELATIONS AFTER 1991

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-229
Author(s):  
Kaniet Zhamilova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Economic Relationships ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
The Relationship

This work is dedicated to learn about the Kyrgyz - US relationships after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The paper analyzed the political and economic relationships between two independent countries after 1991. This work is identified the three steps of the development of bilateral relationships, analyzed how the cooperation changes during the different president administrations and how do external and internal problems affected on it. It has also identified that the relationship between the United States and Kyrgyzstan in political and economic sphere was different as far as presidents were different. So, every president had their own ideas, provisions, strategies and priorities based on their awareness and knowledge of politics and international relations.

The Soviet Union and World Peace

1946 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-474
Author(s):  
N. S. Timasheff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
World Peace ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Post War

On the two victory days, military action on the fronts stopped. But peace did not return, nor does anyone know when it will. Peace is not simply absence of military .ction. It is a state of international relations corresponding to “periods of normalcy” in the internal affairs of a nation. Peace exists, when these relations are dominated by good will, mutual understanding and friendly cooperation.The post-war world longs for peace. But there is no peace because, among the sovereign states, there is one which acts against peace. This is the Soviet Union. Is it, however, certain that the foreign policy of the Soviets is aggressive? Is it not true that, in Moscow, aggressiveness is ascribed to the United States and to the alleged Western bloc headed by it?In March, 1946, Professor E. Tarle, an authoritative spokesman of the Soviet government, placed in opposition “the old imperialistic concept of international relations” practiced by London and Washington and “the Soviet conception which is based on respect for the rights of the peoples and their real independence.”

scholarly journals Legal cooperation between Russia and the USA: historical roots of modern problems

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
R. V. Yengibaryan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Xix Century

Introduction. Relations between Russia and the United States have nearly three centuries of history, and for more than two hundred years the countries had diplomatic relations which were interrupted for sixteen years from 1917 to 1933. Perhaps the XIX century was the most peaceful and fruitful for our countries when the interests of the Russian Empire and the United States on the world stage did not contradict each other, often coincided, thus excluding confrontation between the two nation-states. The XIX century for Russia and the United States was marked by the singing of a number of bilateral treaties, including the treaty on the extradition of criminals, which consolidated their partnership.On the contrary, the XX century is marked by unstable and cyclical relations between the two countries. The rejection of Soviet power, the long period of non-recognition of the Soviet Union was followed in 1933 by mutual multifaceted cooperation between the USSR and the United States, which included the legal sphere, and by the allied relations during the Second World War. The second half of the twentieth century was the time of open confrontation between the two world giants, when the crisis of relations between the USSR and the United States put the world on the brink of world war III. In such conditions, there could be no talk of improving the legal framework of legal cooperation, and the agreement on the procedure for execution of court orders concluded in 1935 did not find its practical application.Modern Russia has assumed the entire burden of problems and contradictions in legal cooperation with the United States. Searching for ways out of them is possible only on the basis of historical analysis of their prerequisites, taking into account the peculiarities of modern international relations.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study is the dialectical method of cognition of phenomena in the relationship and mutual conditionality using a set of general and particular scientific methods of cognition of reality. The historical method contributed to the restoration of the chronological sequence of legal cooperation between Russia (USSR) and the United States. The method of actualization made it possible to identify the historical factors that determined the peculiarities of international cooperation in the legal sphere. The method of diachronization made it possible to identify certain successive stages in the development of international legal cooperation between Russia (USSR) and the United States, to compare them, to identify patterns of development.Results. In the framework of the study, the author found that inter-state legal cooperation is an integral part of the foreign policy of states. The international legal basis of cooperation between Russia and the United States in civil, family and criminal cases was created in a different historical era, does not meet modern international relations, and is poorly implemented by the justice authorities of the two States.There is no treaty on legal assistance in civil and family matters that is fundamental to the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of both States, and there are no provisions on extradition in the Treaty on legal assistance in criminal matters.Discussion and Conclusions. The international legal framework of cooperation between the Russian Federation (and earlier - the Soviet Union) and the United States of America in the legal sphere; the problems of implementation of international legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases are researched. The main provisions of the Treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal cases of 2000; multilateral Conventions on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial cases of 1965 are analyzed. The 1958 Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the 1935 Agreement “On the procedure for the execution of court orders between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America” were explored. The prospects for the development of legal cooperation between Russia and the United States are shown.

scholarly journals Study on the Model Construction of Power Transfer Movement from the Perspective of China`s International Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Baixu Duan ◽  
Jia Tang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mechanism Model ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Modelling Analysis ◽  
Short Period ◽  
International Power

Power plays a fundamental role in the system in the international relations. Basie on Game Theory, and by the assumption that the total amount of power is relatively constant in a short period of time, this paper makes a modelling analysis of the "take-and-give" movement of power among rational countries. Based on building the curve of power taken and the curve of power given, the power balance mechanism model and the power movement track model are constructed. We also make an analysis and by the examples. In the current situation, this paper agrees with the view of most scholars. China and the United States have opened a "cold war" different from the United States and the Soviet Union. With the coordination between the PRC-US relations, it is concluded that a stable international power mechanism requires the active cooperation of all countries, which could promote the power operation to reach the equilibrium point. The analysis method of power movement can explain the cause, progress, and trend of Sino US cold war to a certain extent.

scholarly journals “Bread for the People and National Security”: Soviet commercial diplomacy during the period of détente

2021 ◽  
pp. 103-119
Author(s):  
Dar'ya Viktorovna Yakupova ◽  
Roman Aleksandrovich Yakupov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Interests ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The People

The relevance of this research is defined by the need for analyzing the historical experience of adaptation of foreign economic activity of the Soviet State to the challenges of Western policy deterrence, the imperatives of which are being applied to Russia in the current context. The subject of this research is the Soviet grain procurement crisis and foreign policy ways for its overcoming. The object of this research is trade and diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. The scientific novelty lies in elaboration of the concept of “commercial diplomacy” – the foreign economic activity of the USSR government aimed at solution of the domestic problems and tasks of modernization. Leaning on the newly introduced sources, the conclusion is made that the policy of commercial diplomacy implemented by the Soviet Union suggested the use of international dialogue within the framework of cooperation between the governments and public-private business circles on achieving the economic goals associated with the national interests of the Soviet Union. The critical need for grain procurement, discovery of the oil resources potential, and détente in the international relations between the two superpowers led to a new round in the Soviet Union – United States relations. It is underlined that grain and oil manifested as the factor of maintaining domestic political stability and the object of foreign policy exchange. The article answers the question: how the grain procurement problem has transformed from the economic into social issue, and the grain import has become the vulnerable spot of the Soviet Union in the ideological confrontation with the United States, and the object of international relations.

The ‘New Cold War’ in ‘critical International Relations studies’

1986 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kubalkova ◽  
A. A. Cruickshank
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
New Left ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Cold War

In the historiography of the Cold War a small but active group of American historians influenced by New Left radicalism rejected the view prevailing in the USA at the time in regard to the assignation of responsibility for the beginning and continuation of the Cold War.1 Although their reasoning took them along different routes and via different perceptions as to key dates and events, there were certain features all US revisionists had in common (some more generally recognized than others). Heavily involved as they were in the analysis of the US socio-economic system, the Soviet Union was largely left out of their concerns and it was the United States who had been found the ‘guilty’ party. The revisionists, of course inadvertently, corroborated Soviet conclusions, a fact gratefully acknowledged by Soviet writers.2

Partnership or Predation? How Rising States Contend with Declining Great Powers

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-126
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Economic Interdependence ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
The Soviet Union

International relations scholarship overwhelmingly expects that relatively rising states will threaten and challenge declining great powers. In practice, however, rising states can also cooperate with and support declining powers. What explains the rising state's choice of policy? When do rising states support or prey on declining great powers, and why do such strategies vary across time and space? The answer depends on the rising state's broader strategic calculations. All things being equal, a rising state will generally support a declining power when the latter can be used to offset threats from other great powers that can harm the rising state's security. Conversely, when using a declining state to offset such challenges is not a plausible option, the rising state is likely to pursue a predation strategy. The level of assertiveness of support or predation, meanwhile, depends on the declining power's military posture: the stronger the declining state is militarily, the less assertive the rising state tends to be. A review of the strategies adopted by two relatively rising powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, toward a declining Great Britain after 1945, and of a rising United States vis-à-vis a declining Soviet Union in the late Cold War, illustrates how this argument outperforms explanations that focus instead on the importance of economic interdependence and ideology.

Images of the United States and the Soviet Union Held by Jamaican Elite Groups

1960 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendell Bell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
General Populations ◽  
General Concern

Reflecting the general concern about international relations felt in this country, social scientists have written a great deal recently about the images of Americans and of the United States which are held by foreigners. It is generally agreed that the attitudes of foreigners toward us are important factors in the success or failure of American foreign policy in the struggle against the threat of world communism. The quantity of material which is now available is drawn from diverse sources, including the informed judgments of experts, content analyses of newspapers, opinions of foreigners who are studying in the United States, polls of students and of the general populations of foreign countries, and interviews with political and other leaders in various countries.

Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations

1996 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lake
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Security Relations ◽  
Governance Costs ◽  
Residual Control

Security relations between states vary along a continuum from anarchic alliances to hierarchic empires. This continuum, in turn, is defined by the parties' rights of residual control. The state's choice between alternatives is explained in a theory of relational contracting as a function of the expected costs of opportunism, which decline with relational hierarchy, and governance costs, which rise with relational hierarchy. A comparison of early postwar relations between the United States and Western Europe and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe illustrates the theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document