000			04100cam a2200349 a 4500
001			16908374
005			20170105102916.0
008			110808s2012 enk b 001 0 eng
010			_a 2011033548
020			_a9781107014718 (hardback)
020			_a9781107603769 (paperback)
040			_aDLC _cDLC _dDLC
042			_apcc
050	0	0	_aJZ1318 _b.R375 2012
082	0	0	_a327.1/7 _223
084			_aPOL011000 _2bisacsh
100	1		_aRathbun, Brian C., _d1973-
245	1	0	_aTrust in international cooperation : _binternational security institutions, domestic politics, and American multilateralism / _cBrian C. Rathbun.
260			_aCambridge, UK ; _aNew York : _bCambridge University Press, _c2012.
300			_axiv, 253 p. ; _c24 cm.
490	0		_aCambridge studies in international relations ; _v121
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
520			_a"Trust in International Cooperation challenges conventional wisdoms concerning the part which trust plays in international cooperation and the origins of American multilateralism. Rathbun questions rational institutionalist arguments, demonstrating that trust precedes rather than follows the creation of international organizations. Drawing on social psychology, he shows that individuals placed in the same structural circumstances show markedly different propensities to cooperate based on their beliefs about the trustworthiness of others. Linking this finding to political psychology, Rathbun explains why liberals generally pursue a more multilateral foreign policy than conservatives, evident in the Democratic Party's greater support for a genuinely multilateral League of Nations, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rathbun argues that the post-Second World War bipartisan consensus on multilateralism is a myth, and differences between the parties are growing continually starker"--
520			_a"In 2001, even before the terrible events of 9/11, a term once reserved for arcane discussions among academics began to seep into the public discourse - unilateralism. This was the characterization of a number of high-profile actions taken by the new Republican administration such as the "unsigning" of the International Criminal Court statute and a lack of serious engagement on the issue of climate change. Following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the Bush administration decided to fight the war in Afghanistan largely alone, refusing an offer of NATO help. Then, of course, came Iraq. The American government, unable to garner the international community's endorsement of its aim of permanently disarming Saddam Hussein's regime by force, proceeded without the sanction of the United Nations. The government's unilateralism, it has been consistently maintained, marked a departure from the post-WWII tradition of American multilateral engagement and has attracted widespread disappointment and scorn on the part of American allies. Even as the Bush administration was brandished for being unilateral, however, scholars and pundits alike failed to interrogate the term and its logical opposite - multilateralism. What are unilateralism and multilateralism and what are their sources? A convenient answer is that unilateralism is the desire to go it alone, one that simply emerges when a state's interests are out of line with those of other countries. Why, after all, would the United States seek to constrain itself multilaterally in the United Nations when other countries were not as threatened by the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorists' hands?"--
650		0	_aInternational cooperation.
650		0	_aInternational organization.
650		7	_aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / International Relations / General. _2bisacsh
856	4	2	_3Cover image _uhttp://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/14718/cover/9781107014718.jpg
906			_a7 _bcbc _corignew _d1 _eecip _f20 _gy-gencatlg
942			_2ddc _cBK
999			_c15377 _d15377