<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sean S. Costigan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereign or Global Internet? Russia and China Press for Cybercrime Treaty: An Update</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conflict</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cybercrime</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cyberspace</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2023</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">91-98</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Under the guise of combating cybercrime, two radically different visions of cyberspace compete for attention on the international stage: a free-flowing model of cyberspace that democracies have championed is now challenged by a so-called sovereign model. Counter-democratic initiatives to reframe cyberspace in strictly national terms are underway with the likely result of decreased cooperation and increased risks of conflict and cybercrime.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sean S. Costigan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereign or Global Internet? Russia and China Press for Cybercrime Treaty</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conflict</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cooperation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cybercrime</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cyberspace</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spring 2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9-13</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Under the guise of combating cybercrime, two radically different visions of cyberspace compete for attention on the international stage: a free-flowing model of cyberspace that democracies have championed is now challenged by a so-called sovereign model. Counter-democratic initiatives to reframe cyberspace in strictly national terms are underway with the likely result of decreased cooperation and increased risks of conflict and cybercrime.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anna Konarzewska</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Outside the European Economic and Monetary Union: Consequences for the United Kingdom</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Connections: The Quarterly Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EMU</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Euro</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Financial Center</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Monetary Policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mortgage Market</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United Kingdom</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Spring 2008</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">120-140</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The consequences of staying outside the European Economic and Monetary Union can be divided into three categories: political, economic, and social. For the United Kingdom, most attention has been concentrated on the issue of economic gains and losses. The potential gains include a possibility for the British government to conduct its own national economic and monetary policy, the elimination of socalled social dumping, preserving the British mortgage and housing markets, and promoting London as a worldwide financial center. Moreover, approving the Euro could enlarge British foreign trade and enhance inflows of foreign direct investment. On the other hand, the negative economic consequences focus on lack of transparency of prices, no elimination of transaction costs, and the risk of disrupting the exchange rate of the pound sterling. The political and social consequences of staying outside the Euro zone must also be taken into account when analyzing the British case. Without participating in the common currency, the United Kingdom could preserve her national sovereignty and independence, although this remains questionable in the current world, which is characterized by high levels of interdependence. Likewise, the British stand to lose their influence in the European Union and in the world by not participating in the third stage of the EMU.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kai-Helin Kaldas</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Evolution of Estonian Security Options During the 1990s</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Athena Papers</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">NATO enlargement</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">small state theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sovereignty</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">structural realism</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Garmisch-Partenkirchen</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">92</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper illustrates the complex mental navigation that decision-makers need to perform to effectively steer a course for their small state, between the attraction of a successful alliance (NATO) and the appetites of a nostalgic former empire. It also implicitly considers the other structural pressures on newly independent countries; the question of legitimacy; the difficult transition from a command to a market economy; and the tension-filled relations between the Russian minority and the Estonian majority. Not to be forgotten are the gamut of ordinary challenges that face modern societies: environmental responsibility, agricultural policy, human resource and social development, health care, democratic turbulence -- all these factors are intimately intertwined with the general notion of security.
This study is original because it places the notion that NATO membership was not automatically the preferred solution back into consideration. Neutrality and alternative regional security arrangements were also considered very seriously by many of these newly independent states, an--as this publication shows--there was also significant lobbying in Estonia in favor of these options by regional powers that faced a security dilemma of their own. This paper sheds new light on the development of such security options, seen from an insider’s perspective. From an analytical point of view, these debates cannot be divorced from the strategic consequences for the region and wider Europe, nor from the domestic implications of pursuing a given course of action. 
This paper demonstrates how Estonia made the sovereign decisions that would guarantee its security, so as to secure the appropriate amount of “residual” sovereignty necessary for internal stability.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>