Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Testing alternative responses to power preponderance : buffering, binding, bonding and beleaguering in the real world||Authors:||Chong, Ja Ian||Keywords:||DRNTU::Social sciences::Military and naval science||Issue Date:||2004||Source:||Chong, J. I. (2004). Testing alternative responses to power preponderance : buffering, binding, bonding and beleaguering in the real world. (RSIS Working Paper, No. 60). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.||Series/Report no.:||RSIS Working Papers ; 60/04||Abstract:||In an earlier piece entitled, "Revisiting Responses to Power Preponderance: Beyond Balancing and Bandwagoning", the author developed four alternative resonses to power preponderance that fell outside the traditional international relations framework of balancing and bandwagoning. The four responses are namely binding, buffering, bonding and beleaguering. The previous work argued that states might broadly adopt these four responses to preponderant power depending on their relative power next to the leading state and the level of integration with the world system.||URI:||https://hdl.handle.net/10356/91399
|Rights:||Nanyang Technological University||Fulltext Permission:||open||Fulltext Availability:||With Fulltext|
|Appears in Collections:||RSIS Working Papers |
Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.