Author's Keywords: Globalization, Military Strategy, Land power, Naval power, Army, Navy, World War I, Ressource dependency, Liberalism	Convention Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p210069_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Vennesson, Pascal. "Imagining War in Two Eras of Globalization" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL, Aug 30, 2007 <Not Available>. 2011-06-08 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p210069_index.html>

Vennesson, P. , 2007-08-30 "Imagining War in Two Eras of Globalization" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL Online <PDF>. 2011-06-08 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p210069_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: Historians and political scientists agree that globalization is not a new phenomenon. Between 1850 and 1914, freedom of trade, capital transfers, changes in transportation and communication technologies, as well as international migrations, all worked to affect threat perceptions and conceptions of military power. Prominent work by economic historians on the so-called first globalization (Bordo, Williamson) provided a welcome interdisciplinary dialogue with more recent work by IPE scholars on the current globalization and its alleged consequences. At the same time, the historiography of the pre-1914 international system is bringing together more and more international political economy issues and international security dynamics, including changes in military power (Stevenson, Ferguson, Strachan). These more recent work point out that military and naval professionals made assumptions about the workings of commercial and trading interdependencies which influenced their perceptions of strategic strength and vulnerability. Yet, at this point, few political scientists have engaged in that debate on the strategic implications of globalization both before 1914 and today. The goal of this paper is to do precisely that. Why, and how, does the greater interconnectedness of the international system shaped military strategy in two different periods, before 1914 and today? Some strategists acknowledged that this greater interconnectedness led to a decline of the utility of force. Others, however, saw new, unsettling, opportunities for using force. Why does globalization constrain military strategists in some cases, and enable them in others? I argue that the impact of globalization on strategy is likely to depend on strategists perceptions of globalization and on their conception of the military profession. Borrowing from the resource dependency approach in organization theory, I show that strategists can adapt to globalization in four different ways: (1) strategists can accommodate the demands of globalization on the military�s core competency, and redefine the armed forces� roles and missions; (2) strategists can refuse to accommodate, and attempt to shape globalization instead; (3) strategists can define a new desired equilibrium between military power�s imperative and globalization; (4), or strategists can allow the existing balance to prevail. The goal of the paper is to identify and compare the varied responses of land and naval power leading strategists to the increasing demands of globalization on military power in two different eras. I ask if, and to what extent, they thought in terms of the potential impact of globalization when they planned for the employment of military power. Were strategists in both eras aware of globalization dynamics, and did they worry similarly or differently about their consequences on strategy? Were they intellectually well-equipped to integrate economic and technological challenges to military planning? Did they define and conceptualize globalization in similar or different ways during both periods? How did they take it into account when they design military doctrine? By engaging with the renewal of the historiography of the pre-1914 international system, I hope to contribute to a stimulating interdisciplinary debate at the intersection of history and international politics.

Global Trading System & Geopolitics: How Military Technology Affects International Exchanges and Economic Development

Military Power in a Globalizing International System: The Politics of Military Adaptation