Journal articles: 'Andrew Moravcsik'

1

Keeler, John T. S. "A Response to Andrew Moravcsik." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 74–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032219.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle'bs vision of French grandeur. John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Milward, Alan S. "A Comment on the Article by Andrew Moravcsik." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 77–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032228.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur. John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Hoffmann, Stanley. "Comment on Moravcsik." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032200.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur. John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues thatde Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Trachtenberg, Marc. "De Gaulle, Moravcsik, and Europe." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 101–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032255.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur. John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Gillingham, John. "A Test Case of Moravcsik's “Liberal Intergovernmentalist” Approach to European Integration." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 81–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032237.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur.John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Pentland, Charles. "The Choice for Europe. Andrew Moravcsik." Journal of Politics 62, no. 4 (November 2000): 1254–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/jop.62.4.2647902.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Vanke, Jeffrey. "Reconstructing De Gaulle." Journal of Cold War Studies 2, no. 3 (September 2000): 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/15203970051032246.

Full text

Abstract:

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur. John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

ÖRAZ, Seçil. "Andrew Moravcsik and European Integratıon Through Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach." Journal of Turkish Studies Volume 6 Issue 1, no. 6 (2010): 1611–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.1975.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Lieshout, Robert H., Mathieu L. L. Segers, and Anna M. van der Vleuten. "De Gaulle, Moravcsik, and The Choice for Europe: Soft Sources, Weak Evidence." Journal of Cold War Studies 6, no. 4 (October 2004): 89–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1520397042350900.

Full text

Abstract:

In The Choice for Europe Andrew Moravcsik develops a “commercial” interpretation of Charles de Gaulle's European policies. Moravcsik claims that his revisionist analysis succeeds because he, as opposed to almost all other students of European Community policymaking, has relied not on “soft” sources but on hard primary sources. An investigation of his claim shows that it cannot be substantiated. Both the quality of his sources and his handling of them are poor. His commercial interpretation of de Gaulle's policy is based on a serious misreading of the two sources on which his argument depends. Finally, his restatement in 2000 of his original argument a restatement intended to overcome the problem that, as his critics pointed out, he failed to produce any direct supporting evidence leads only to further problems.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Young, Oran R. "Comment on Andrew Moravcsik, “A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation”." International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 805–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081899551075.

Full text

Abstract:

Andrew Moravcsik's article titled “A New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurs and International Cooperation” is a powerfully argued and provocative contribution to our understanding of the role of individuals in the dynamics of international cooperation. His revisionist account of the parts played by prominent figures like Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors in the development of the European Union (EU) is sufficient all by itself to ensure that this piece will stimulate vigorous debate.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Maull, Hanns W. "The politics of the EU." Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 2, no. 1 (August 19, 2016): 55–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2057891116662343.

Full text

Abstract:

The article looks at the politics of the European Union’s policies towards China, using the liberal theory of international politics of Andrew Moravcsik as a framework for analysis. It concludes that these policies are structurally fragmented, incoherent and inconsistent because of the way they are formulated and implemented. The preponderance of commercial preferences and the insistence on national sovereignty are crucial to understanding why this is the case. As a consequence, the European position in the bilateral relationship is weakened and the relationship itself is unbalanced.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Kaina, Victoria, and Ireneusz P. Karolewski. "Why we should not believe every lesson Andrew Moravcsik teaches us: A response." Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48, no. 4 (December 2007): 740–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-007-0130-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Wall, Irwin. "Commentary on Globalizing de Gaulle." Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 1 (January 2012): 48–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00191.

Full text

Abstract:

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Moravcsik, Andrew. "Charles de Gaulle and Europe: The New Revisionism." Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 1 (January 2012): 53–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00192.

Full text

Abstract:

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Kolodziej, Edward A. "Commentary on Globalizing de Gaulle." Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 1 (January 2012): 78–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00193.

Full text

Abstract:

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Trachtenberg, Marc. "The de Gaulle Problem." Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 1 (January 2012): 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00194.

Full text

Abstract:

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Nuenlist, Christian, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin. "Reply to the Commentaries." Journal of Cold War Studies 14, no. 1 (January 2012): 93–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jcws_a_00195.

Full text

Abstract:

Four distinguished analysts of French foreign policy under Charles de Gaulle provide in-depth assessments of the new book edited by Christian Nuenlist, Anna Locher, and Garret Martin, Globalizing de Gaulle: International Perspectives on French Foreign Policies, 1958–1969, published by Lexington Books. The commentators praise the book's wide scope and many of its essays and broad themes, but they raise questions about Garret Martin's contention (shared by a few, though not all, of the other contributors to the volume) that de Gaulle had a coherent if ultimately unsuccessful strategy to overcome the Cold War and move toward the unification of Germany and Europe. In article-length commentaries, both Andrew Moravcsik and Marc Trachtenberg take issue with Martin's view, arguing that de Gaulle's foreign policy involved more bluff and bluster than any genuine attempt to bring about the reunification of Germany or to end the Cold War. Moravcsik also provides a spirited defense of the “revisionist” conception of de Gaulle's policy toward Europe, which sees the general as having been guided mostly by his domestic economic and political interests—a conception that Trachtenberg has also come to accept. The forum ends with a reply by Nuenlist, Locher, and Martin to the four commentaries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

PINE, Melissa. "European integration: a meeting ground for history and political science? A historian responds to Andrew Moravcsik." Journal of European Integration History 14, no. 1 (2008): 87–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/0947-9511-2008-1-87.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Luerdi. "Turkish Domestic Actors’ Role in Foreign Policy Making: Case of Turkey – KRG’s Strategic Bilateral Partnership." Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional 21, no. 1 (July 5, 2019): 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.7454/global.v21i1.347.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper aims to describe the role of Turkish domestic societal actors in the state policy making in the case of strategic bilateral partnership between Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG); a quasi state within the Iraqi federal state. The rareness of literature describing domestic forces within Turkey and the consequence for the state’s policy in building a strategic partnership with the KRG was the gap that this research would be expected to narrow. The paper argues that Turkish domestic actors like the individual, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), the Turkish military and business people had an important role; shaping Turkey’s preference and national interests strongly determined by their views on nation and economic regulation which occupied its legitimate preference. The research applied the ideational liberal theory proposed by Andrew Moravcsik emphasizing the primacy of domestic actors. The research was qualitative with descriptive analysis model. The paper represents a perspective that identity or values well embedded in domestic actors’ views do matter to understand the state behavior either cooperation or conflict.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Erik Jørgensen, Knud. "Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London: UCL Press, 1998, 514 s., £ 14.95." Politica 31, no. 2 (January 1, 1999): 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.7146/politica.v31i2.68283.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Wagner, R. Harrison. "Power, Interdependence, and Nonstate Actors in World Politics. Edited by Helen V. Milner and Andrew Moravcsik. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 320p. $29.95." Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (June 2010): 718–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759271000109x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Anderson, Jeffrey J. "The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. By Andrew Moravcsik. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. 514p. $59.95 cloth, $22.50 paper." American Political Science Review 94, no. 2 (June 2000): 515–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2586098.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Jahn, Beate. "Liberal internationalism: from ideology to empirical theory – and back again." International Theory 1, no. 3 (November 2009): 409–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1752971909000141.

Full text

Abstract:

This article shows that Andrew Moravcsik’s ‘nonideological’ formulation of a liberal theory of international relations is itself deeply ideological – both in terms of his own criteria and in terms of a broader conception of ideology. The source of this outcome lies in Moravcsik’s mistaken conception of ideology. While ideological knowledge is indeed particular rather than general, it shares this feature with all political knowledge. In the political sphere, it is therefore not general knowledge that transcends the limits of ideology but rather an explicit engagement with these limits. A nonideological study of liberalism would thus require an historical account of the origins and development of liberalism in the context of its struggle with internal and external competitors. While such a study would not constitute a liberal theory of international relations in general, it would provide a general theory of liberal international relations – and would thus be highly relevant in the context of a liberal world order.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Tolvaišaitė, Justė. "EUROPOS PASIRINKIMAS KAIP JĮ SUPRANTA ANDREW MORAVCSIKAS: KUR SLYPI EUROPOS INTEGRACIJOS PRIEŽASTYS?" Politologija 55, no. 3 (January 1, 2015): 155–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/polit.2009.3.8405.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Zamęcki, Łukasz. "The crisis of legitimacy of the EU from the perspective of intergovernmentalism." Przegląd Europejski, no. 4-2015 (April 24, 2016): 110–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.4.15.6.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim of the paper is to analyse the sources of the crisis of legitimacy of the EU from the perspective of the intergovernmental paradigm. The paper also focuses on the nature of this crisis and the possibilities of increasing the legitimacy of the EU. The author claims that the crisis of legitimacy is a result of the fact that there is “too much Europe”, not “too little”. According to Andrew Moravcsik’s approach to intergovernmentalism, the EU crisis is a result of feeling that the European Union has ceased to be seen as an effective tool for realising the interests of the states, or that the states started to define their preferences in the integration process in an unreasonable way.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Narizny, Kevin. "On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism." International Security 42, no. 2 (November 2017): 155–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00296.

Full text

Abstract:

Both Gideon Rose's neoclassical realism and Andrew Moravcsik's liberalism attempt to solve the problem of how to incorporate domestic factors into international relations theory. They do so in very different ways, however. Liberalism is a “bottom-up” perspective that accords analytic priority to societal preferences; neoclassical realism is a “top-down” perspective that accords analytic priority to systemic pressures and treats domestic factors as intervening variables. These two approaches are not equivalent, and the choice between them has high stakes. Although it has gained rapidly in popularity, neoclassical realism is fundamentally flawed. Its intellectual justification is weak; it is logically incoherent; and it induces the commission of methodological errors. Realism can incorporate certain domestic factors without losing its theoretical integrity, but it does not need and should not use neoclassical realism to do so.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Duina, Francesco. "Gauging the Impact of the European Union on the Nation-StateThe Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. By Andrew Moravcisk Jacques Delors and European Integration. By George Ross Adjusting to Europe: The Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies. By Yves Mény , Pierre Muller , and Jean-Louis Quermonne Ideas and Institutions in the European Union: The Case of Social Regulation and Its Complex Decision-Making. By Hans Arnum." Polity 32, no. 3 (March 2000): 455–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235361.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Briceño Ruiz, José. "Le libéralisme intergouvernemental et le nouveau régionalisme caribéen." 34, no. 3 (December 7, 2009): 357–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/038661ar.

Full text

Abstract:

Résumé Le libéralisme intergouvernemental proposé par Andrew Moravcsik est devenu une approche très importante pour expliquer le processus d’intégration en Europe occidentale. Peut-il être valable pour analyser l’intégration entre les pays sous-développés ? Le but de l’article est d’introduire une réflexion générale sur la contribution du libéralisme intergouvernemental pour expliquer le processus d’intégration de l’Association des États de la Caraïbe. Sur le plan de l’analyse, le travail aborde l’approche de Moravcsik et sa contribution à la théorie de l’intégration régionale. Ensuite, nous retiendrons un élément de l’approche de Moravcsik pour expliquer le développement de l’aec. À partir de l’étude du processus de formation de préférences nationales au sein de trois pays de l’aec : le Costa Rica, la République dominicaine et le Mexique, le texte analyse la façon dont les idées de Moravsick peuvent être appliquées au Bassin Caraïbes.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Navarrete, Víctor. "Judicial Globalisation. A New Model of North-South Relations for the 21st Century?" Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 1, no. 8 (January 1, 2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487872e.2008.8.247.

Full text

Abstract:

Este trabajo presenta una evaluación crítica del fenómeno llamado globalización judicial, como lo describen algunos autores neoliberales, tales como Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik y Anne Marie Slaughter. De acuerdo con estos pensadores, la globalización judicial creará una comunidad legal global (un lenguaje legal común), y convertirá a los cuerpos judiciales alrededor del mundo en discretos, pero importantes centros de poder que reducirán los márgenes de maniobra de la política exterior por parte de las instituciones gubernamentales. Este ensayo demostrará que esta teoría responde a una agenda política particular, por la cual una élite transnacional emergente pretende imponer sus intereses sobre los países en desarrollo.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

"Andrew Moravcsik. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. (Cornell Studies in Political Economy.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1998. Pp. xii, 514. $22.50." American Historical Review, December 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ahr/104.5.1742.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Akilatan, T. B. François. "Liberal Intergovernmentalism: An Overview of Andrew Moravcsik’s Contribution to International Relations." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3772589.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Andrew Moravcsik'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles