This book puts forward a new angle of understanding the society of states in the milieu of the contemporary world. The absence of a regulatory mechanism, i.e., anarchy, has been the fundamental issue of international relations. This book explains how the normative imperatives, information and communication technology (ICT) and nuclear deterrence generated ambiance have poised the states in a society where they are bound to follow certain normative imperatives that dilute the color and meaning of anarchy and obliges the states to act in a certain way. It develops a theoretical proposition with regard to state power defined in terms of the capability of determining the outcomes. The proposition first elaborates how international institutions foster normative imperatives; then, in line with this ontology, it narrows down the focus solely on the power of the states in the contemporary world. It explains how the power that can determine the outcome today is holistic in nature, comprising both materialistic and normative factors. In the next step, it tailors the proposition in a way so as to employ it for a specific empirical work. The book does not end just positing the theoretical proposition; the proposition is testified through some case studies with regard to climate negotiations under the UNFCCC. The empirical part not only serves to examine the plausibility of the theoretical proposition, but it also presents the logic of the major actors and the politics with respect to some of the major issues of climate change, i.e., mitigation, funding policy and mechanism and adaptation. The scholars in this arena, climate activists and climate-conscious people in general would find this book worth reading as it kindles a different angle to understand the issues in the context of the contemporary world and as it elaborates the logic, framing process, and mechanism of reaching outcomes through complex negotiation process. No other work has so far analyzed the issues covering the entire period of 21 apex UNFCCC negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement. Apart from university libraries, this book, thus, has the prospect to be sold in the markets targeting the academicians, climate change experts, bureaucrats, negotiators and the common readers.

To succeed in foreign policy, U.S. presidents have to sell their versions or framings of political events to the news media and to the public. But since the end of the Cold War, journalists have increasingly resisted presidential views, even offering their own spin on events. What, then, determines whether the media will accept or reject the White House perspective? And what consequences does this new media environment have for policymaking and public opinion? To answer these questions, Robert M. Entman develops a powerful new model of how media framing works—a model that allows him to explain why the media cheered American victories over small-time dictators in Grenada and Panama but barely noticed the success of far more difficult missions in Haiti and Kosovo. Discussing the practical implications of his model, Entman also suggests ways to more effectively encourage the exchange of ideas between the government and the media and between the media and the public. His book will be an essential guide for political scientists, students of the media, and anyone interested in the increasingly influential role of the media in foreign policy.

This book puts forward a new angle of understanding the society of states in the milieu of the contemporary world. The absence of a regulatory mechanism, i.e., anarchy, has been the fundamental issue of international relations. This book explains how the normative imperatives, information and communication technology (ICT) and nuclear deterrence generated ambiance have poised the states in a society where they are bound to follow certain normative imperatives that dilute the color and meaning of anarchy and obliges the states to act in a certain way. It develops a theoretical proposition with regard to state power defined in terms of the capability of determining the outcomes. The proposition first elaborates how international institutions foster normative imperatives; then, in line with this ontology, it narrows down the focus solely on the power of the states in the contemporary world. It explains how the power that can determine the outcome today is holistic in nature, comprising both materialistic and normative factors. In the next step, it tailors the proposition in a way so as to employ it for a specific empirical work. The book does not end just positing the theoretical proposition; the proposition is testified through some case studies with regard to climate negotiations under the UNFCCC. The empirical part not only serves to examine the plausibility of the theoretical proposition, but it also presents the logic of the major actors and the politics with respect to some of the major issues of climate change, i.e., mitigation, funding policy and mechanism and adaptation. The scholars in this arena, climate activists and climate-conscious people in general would find this book worth reading as it kindles a different angle to understand the issues in the context of the contemporary world and as it elaborates the logic, framing process, and mechanism of reaching outcomes through complex negotiation process. No other work has so far analyzed the issues covering the entire period of 21 apex UNFCCC negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement. Apart from university libraries, this book, thus, has the prospect to be sold in the markets targeting the academicians, climate change experts, bureaucrats, negotiators and the common readers.

This book puts forward a new angle of understanding the society of states in the milieu of the contemporary world. The absence of a regulatory mechanism, i.e., anarchy, has been the fundamental issue of international relations. This book explains how the normative imperatives, information and communication technology (ICT) and nuclear deterrence generated ambiance have poised the states in a society where they are bound to follow certain normative imperatives that dilute the color and meaning of anarchy and obliges the states to act in a certain way. It develops a theoretical proposition with regard to state power defined in terms of the capability of determining the outcomes. The proposition first elaborates how international institutions foster normative imperatives; then, in line with this ontology, it narrows down the focus solely on the power of the states in the contemporary world. It explains how the power that can determine the outcome today is holistic in nature, comprising both materialistic and normative factors. In the next step, it tailors the proposition in a way so as to employ it for a specific empirical work. The book does not end just positing the theoretical proposition; the proposition is testified through some case studies with regard to climate negotiations under the UNFCCC. The empirical part not only serves to examine the plausibility of the theoretical proposition, but it also presents the logic of the major actors and the politics with respect to some of the major issues of climate change, i.e., mitigation, funding policy and mechanism and adaptation. The scholars in this arena, climate activists and climate-conscious people in general would find this book worth reading as it kindles a different angle to understand the issues in the context of the contemporary world and as it elaborates the logic, framing process, and mechanism of reaching outcomes through complex negotiation process. No other work has so far analyzed the issues covering the entire period of 21 apex UNFCCC negotiations that led to the Paris Agreement. Apart from university libraries, this book, thus, has the prospect to be sold in the markets targeting the academicians, climate change experts, bureaucrats, negotiators and the common readers.

Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently—and often incorrectly—by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.

Don't Think of An Elephant is the antidote to decades of conservative strategising and the right's stranglehold on political dialogue. More specifically, it is the definitive handbook for understanding and communicating effectively about key social and political issues. George Lakoff explains in detail exactly how the right has managed to co-opt traditional values in order to popularise its political agenda. He also provides examples of how the centre-left can address the community's core values and re-frame political debate to establish a civil discourse that reinforces progressive positions. Don't Think of An Elephant provides a compelling linguistic analysis of political campaigning. But, more importantly, it demonstrates that real political values and ideas must provide the foundation for political progress by the centre-left.

Framing the Global explores new and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of global issues. Essays are framed around the entry points or key concepts that have emerged in each contributor's engagement with global studies in the course of empirical research, offering a conceptual toolkit for global research in the 21st century.

In Diversifying Power, energy expert Jennie Stephens argues that the key to effectively addressing the climate crisis is diversifying leadership so that antiracist, feminist priorities are central. Stephens examines climate and energy leadership related to job creation and economic justice, health and nutrition, and housing and transportation. She explains why we need to reclaim and restructure climate and energy systems so policies are explicitly linked to social, economic, and racial justices. Diversifying Power shows that anyone working on issues related to energy or climate (directly or indirectly) can leverage the power of collective action. The work to shift away from an extractive, oppressive energy system has already begun. By highlighting the creative individuals and organizations making change happen, Diversifying Power provides inspiration and encourages action on climate and energy justice.

This distinctive volume offers a thorough examination of the ways in which meaning comes to be shaped. Editors Stephen Reese, Oscar Gandy, and August Grant employ an interdisciplinary approach to the study of conceptualizing and examining media. They illustrate how texts and those who provide them powerfully shape, or "frame," our social worlds and thus affect our public life. Embracing qualitative and quantitative, visual and verbal, and psychological and sociological perspectives, this book helps media consumers develop a multi-faceted understanding of media power, especially in the realm of news and public affairs.

Terrorism now dominates the headlines across the world-from New York to Kabul. Framing Terrorism argues that the headlines matter as much as the act, in political terms. Widely publicized terrorist incidents leave an imprint upon public opinion, muzzle the "watchdog" role of journalists and promote a general one-of-us consensus supporting security forces.