Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Noonan M.P.,Foreign Policy Research Institute
Orbis | Year: 2015

A quarter century after the end of the Cold War the United States faces an international geopolitical landscape that many would have not imagined a generation ago. Today the U.S. faces a disordered world where revisionist powers such as China and Russia wish to change the dynamics of the international system and a revolutionary Islamic State has aspirations to overthrow the entirety of the system itself. While the U.S. still maintains the strongest conventional military capabilities in the system it also has many global commitments and its resources are constrained. In order to cope with the current disordered world it must learn to operate within the current era's ambiguities, particularly in the space between war and peace, and much more adroitly blend its capabilities across the elements of national power to directly and indirectly confront threats and challengers. © 2015. Source


Garfinkle A.,Foreign Policy Research Institute
Orbis | Year: 2015

The geopolitical frame is a necessary but insufficient means to understand the contemporary Middle East. Defining the term in its original, fairly narrow, way puts the analytical spotlight on the Westphalian units-namely, states-that compose the classical modern international system. But those states' lack of decisional agency is itself at the core of the region's instability. As for the region, its troubles are likely to persist for some time. Outsiders cannot fix it; at best, if they are skillful and lucky, they can contain it. © 2015. Source


Granieri R.J.,Foreign Policy Research Institute
Orbis | Year: 2015

In honor of FPRI's 60th Anniversary, this lecture traces the intellectual roots of FPRI's approach to Geopolitics, as initially formulated by its founder Robert Strausz-Hupé, and considers how this approach contrasts with other intellectual traditions, to help illuminate FPRI's ongoing role in the formulation and discussion of American foreign policy. © 2015. Source


Chang F.K.,Foreign Policy Research Institute
Orbis | Year: 2014

Despite worries that ASEAN is becoming weak, the organization remains as strong as it ever was, given the parameters of its design. Its member countries still tightly embrace the organization's principles, the "ASEAN way." But simple adherence to those principles can be problematic. ASEAN countries, whose national economic and political interests collide, often appeal to the same principles to back their positions. That tends to pull ASEAN in different directions. Great power policies, particularly those of China and the United States, now exacerbate the situation. At the same time, ASEAN's reliance on multilateral consensus has made it difficult to reconcile real differences among its member countries or develop unified regional responses. That can be seen in issues from the Xayaburi dam on the Mekong River to the South China Sea. The ease with which ASEAN's principles can come into conflict and its consensus-driven decision- making can become deadlocked clearly marks the limits of the "ASEAN way.". © 2014. Source


Dreyer J.T.,University of Miami | Dreyer J.T.,Foreign Policy Research Institute
Orbis | Year: 2014

According to integration theory, growing economic interdependence between China and Japan should have spilled over into more cordial political relations. The opposite occurred, as summarized in the phrase "hot economics, cold politics." Even as both sides acknowledge the value of cooperation for shared benefit, commercial and strategic rivalries have intensified, calling into question the validity of integration theory. © 2014. Source

Discover hidden collaborations