This thesis aims to shed light on the differences between offensive and a specific version of neoclassical realism on their expectations regarding how a great power shapes its environment. The neoclassical framework proposed in this work constitutes an independent variable captured by the polarity in the system, an intervening variable of state capacity, and a dependent variable of revisionist foreign policy. It is argued that along with multipolarity and bipolarity, there is a need to incorporate unipolarity in structural realist accounts. Analysed from this perspective, great powers feel high external pressure due to the nature of unipolarity, which diminishes the value of pure structural frameworks. In this respect, the incorporation of state-level factors provides more reliable analyses for explaining anxious great powers` strive for regional hegemony. As a result, neoclassical realism is better equipped to explain Russia`s revisionist foreign policy.

On September 11, 2001 United States faced the most massive terrorist attack in the history, one that killed nearly 3000 people. A tragedy followed by enormous consequences considering the collapse of the World Trade Center, as two hijacked planes crashed into the twin towers in New York City, one plane crashed into Pentagon and another domestic scheduled passenger flight, that crashed into a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. This qualitative case study will examine whether the attacks on 9/11 was a backlash to U.S. political dominance globally. This study will also examine to what extent the policy making executed by the Bush administration post 9/11, was a demonstration of hegemony and political dominance based on offensive realism. The conclusion of this study was that to a large extent, the attacks on 9/11 was a backlash to U.S. political dominance and to a large extent the Bush administration's response to 9/11 can be defined as hegemony based on offensive realism.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(人間・環境学) / 甲第18351号 / 人博第664号 / 新制||人||160(附属図書館) / 25||人博||664(吉田南総合図書館) / 31209 / 京都大学大学院人間・環境学研究科共生人間学専攻 / (主査)教授 加藤 幹郎, 教授 服部 文昭, 教授 松田 英男 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Human and Environmental Studies / Kyoto University / DGAM

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Over the last forty years, nineteenth-century British art has undergone a process of recovery and reevaluation. For nineteenth-century women painters, significant reevaluation dates from the early 1980s. Concurrently, the growing field of interart studies demonstrates that developments in art history have significant repercussions for literary studies. However, interdisciplinary research in nineteenth-century painting and literature often focuses on the rich selection of works from the second half of the century. This study explores how transitions in English painting during the first half of the century influenced the work of British writers. The cultural authority of the writer was unstable during the early decades. The influence of realism and the social mobility of the painter led some authors to resist developments in English art by constructing the painter as a threat to social order or by feminizing the painter. For women writers, this strategy was valuable for it allowed them to displace perceptions about emotional or erotic aspects of artistic identity onto the painter. Connotations of youth, artistic high spirits, and unconventional morality are part of the literature of the nineteenth-century painter, but the history of English painting reveals that this image was a figure of difference upon which ideological issues of national identity, gender, and artistic hierarchy were constructed. Beginning with David Wilkie, and continuing with Margaret Carpenter, Richard Redgrave and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, I trace the emergence of social commitment and social realism in English painting. Considering art and artists from the early decades in relation to depictions of the painter in texts by Maria Edgeworth, Edward Bulwer Lytton, Mary Shelley, Joseph Le Fanu, Felicia Hemans, Lady Sydney Morgan, and William Makepeace Thackeray, reveals patterns of representation that marginalized British artists. However, writers such as Letitia Elizabeth Landon and Robert Browning supported contemporary painting and rejected literary myths of the painter. Articulating disparities between the lived experience of painters and their representation calls for modern literary critics to reassess how nineteenth-century writers wrote the painter, and why. Texts that portray the painter as a figure of myth elide gradations of hierarchy in British culture and the important differentiations that exist within the category of artist. / English