<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Global Studies Review &#187; Global Studies Review Vol. 2 No. 2 Summer 2006</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/tag/global-studies-review-vol-2-no-2-summer-2006/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globality-gmu.net</link>
	<description>nascent theories,  innovative research, and constructive dialogue</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:32:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Sovereignty as an Antidote to Hegemony</title>
		<link>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1047</link>
		<comments>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1047#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hegemony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Studies Review Vol. 2 No. 2 Summer 2006]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globality-gmu.net/?p=1047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BY OMAR DAHBOUR International relations in the second half of the 20th century has been marked by persistent criticisms of the norm of sovereignty previously considered a key to peaceful relations among states. It was frequently claimed that by accepting sovereignty generally, it became harder to question the legitimacy of aggressor states. Furthermore, territorial states [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1047/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soft Borders and Thin Bonds: Citizenship and Transnational Democracy</title>
		<link>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1043</link>
		<comments>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1043#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nationalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transnational Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Studies Review Vol. 2 No. 2 Summer 2006]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globality-gmu.net/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BY JULIE MOSTOV In the midst of domestic arguments for fortifying the United States’ borders, I argue for soft borders and thin social bonds. I have been thinking about borders with respect to Southeastern Europe, but my arguments are meaningful in a larger context. While boundaries are regularly and easily traversed by capital, electronic information, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1043/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Civil Society in the Global Political Arena</title>
		<link>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1038</link>
		<comments>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1038#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Globalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Neoliberalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Studies Review Vol. 2 No. 2 Summer 2006]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globality-gmu.net/?p=1038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BY LISA JORDAN Global civil society is a relatively new layer of networks and organizations that operate beyond national borders. Over 20,000 of these networks are already active on the world stage, 90 % of which have been formed within the last thirty years. Many —including Jubilee 2000, the Global Campaign to Ban Landmines, Amnesty International [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1038/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Democracy Be Exported?</title>
		<link>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1033</link>
		<comments>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1033#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Foreign Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Studies Review Vol. 2 No. 2 Summer 2006]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globality-gmu.net/?p=1033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BY DANIELE ARCHIBUGI The two main wars that opened the third millennium, those in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been justified by the United States (US) and its allies with a mixture of arguments. The first, and perhaps foremost, has been self-defense: to eradicate the terrorist roots in Afghanistan and destroy the alleged weapons of mass [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globality-gmu.net/archives/1033/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

