Abstract
Amongst the many problems we face when dealing with the Mediterranean, the first and certainly not the least important is how to define it; is it a region of international politics, or more generally an area that separates (and unites) other regions? Strictly speaking, the Mediterranean cannot be defined as a region (or subsystem) in the sense usually used in international politics, whether from a theoretical, journalistic or analytical point of view. Indeed, it does not show those characteristics of cultural and political homogeneity, of exchange and institutional integration, that distinguish the regions of the international system.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a critical review see for example W. Thompson, ‘The Regional Subsystem. A Conceptual Explanation and a Propositional Inventory’, International Studies Quarterly, XVII (1973) 89–117.
See B. Buzan, People, State and Fear, 2nd edn (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1991) p. 190.
On the question of Russian identity, see V. Strada, La questione russa. Identità e destino, (Venice: Marsilio, 1991). From this point of view it is interesting to remember, for example, that Fëdor Dostoevskij, considered by many to be one of the greatest authors of European literature, considered Russia as something different from Europe, if not completely totally incomprehensible for the Europeans, as we see from many passages of his Diary of a Writer (George Braziller: New York, 1954). For an analysis of the relations between Russia and Europe, see
I. Neumann, Russia and the Idea of Europe (London: Routledge, 1996).
On the deep changes of the human geography in Anatolia in the last two centuries, see X. de Planhol, Les nations du prophète. Manuel géographique de politique musulmane, (Paris: Fayard, 1995) pp. 677–699.
See F. Braudel, La Mediterranée et le Monde méditerranéen è l’époque de Philippe Il, vol. II (Paris: Colin, 1966) pp. 225–468.
The last big Ottoman attempt to expand in the Mediterranean and in Central Europe, and its eventual failure and reverse, is brightly described by E. Eickhoff, Wien und die Osmanen. Umbruch in Südosteuropa 1645–1700, (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1988).
According to Stephen Krasner’s classic definition, an international regime has to be intended as the set of “principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue area”; see S.D. Krasner, ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regime as Intervening Variable’, in S.D. Krasner, ed., International Regimes, (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983) p. 1. This article reproduces the one published in the Spring 1982 issue of International Organization.
See R. Rosecrance, ‘A New Concert of Powers’, in Foreign Affairs, vol. 71:2 (March–April 1992) 64–82.
See S. Strange, States and Markets, (London: Pinter, 1988).
On the concept of “post-heroic society” see Edward Luttwak, ‘A Post-Heroic Military’, Foreign Affairs, LXXV (1996) 33–44.
H. Bull, The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in International Politics, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1977) p. 16.
On the difficulties met by Islamic fundamentalist movements, see I.A. Karawan, The Islamist Impasse, Adelphi papers n. 314 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the IISS, 1997).
See S. Hunter, Iran and the World. Continuity in a Revolutionary Decade, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).
See G. Krämer, ‘The Integration of the Integrists: a Comparative Study of Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia’, in G. Salamé, ed., Democracy without Democrats? The Renewal of Politics in the Muslim World, (London: Tauris, 1994) pp. 200–226.
For a typology of the solutions I take the liberty of recommending our own L. Bozzo and R. Ragionieri, ‘Regional Security in the Balkans and the Role of Turkey An Italian Perspective’, in The Southeast European Yearbook 1992, (Athens: Hellenic Foundation for Defense and Foreign Policy, 1993) pp. 11–41.
For a wider argument on this subject see L. Feliu, ‘The European Union as a Mediterranean Actor’, in R. Ragionieri, ed., Politica ed economia nell’area mediterranea, Quaderni Forum, XI (1997) 21–40.
See E. Picard, ‘Le Moyen-Orient après la guerre froide et la guerre du Golfe’, in Zaki Laïdi, ed., L’ordre mondial relaché. Sens et puissance après la guerre foide, (Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des Sciences Politiques, 1993) pp. 103–130.
W. Quandt, ‘The Middle East on the Brink: Prospects for Change in the 21st Century’, The Middle East Journal, L (1996) 16.
See B. Badie, L’État importé. L’occidentalization de l’ordre politique, (Paris: Fayard, 1992). Muhammad ‘Ali (1769–1849) was the viceroy and pasha of Egypt (1805–49), and fostered modernising reforms in Egypt. The tanzimat was a series of modernising reforms, heavily influenced by European ideas, promulgated in the Ottoman Empire between 1839 and 1876 under the reigns of the sultans Abdülmecid I and Abdillaziz.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2001 Rodolfo Ragionieri
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ragionieri, R. (2001). Fragmentation and Order in the Mediterranean Area. In: Cerutti, F., Ragionieri, R. (eds) Identities and Conflicts. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288690_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288690_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-42084-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-28869-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)