Between zero and one: liminality of nuclear threshold states
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-6-12-25
Abstract
About the Author
G. V. ToropchinRussian Federation
Gleb V. Toropchin, Cand. of Sci. (History), associate professor
20, K. Marx Av., Novosibirsk, 630073
References
1. Abraham, I. (2006), “The ambivalence of nuclear histories”, Osiris, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 49– 65.
2. Abraham, I. (2010), “ ‘Who’s next?’: Nuclear ambivalence and the contradictions of nonproliferation policy”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 45, no. 43, pp. 48–56.
3. Alekseeva, T.A., Mineev, A.P. and Loshkarev, I.D. (2016), “ ‘The land of confusion’: quantum physics in IR theory?”, MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 7–16, available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zemlya-smyateniyakvantovaya-teoriya-v-mezhdunarodnyh-otnosheniyah (Accessed 25 Sept. 2024).
4. Balduk, J. (2008), On liminality. Conceptualizing “In between-ness”. Master Thesis of Human Geography, Nijmengen, Netherlands.
5. Baquè, G. (2022), “Confronting marginality: Human and nonhuman resilience in the landscape of disaster”, Rivista di studi letterari e culturali, no. 9, pp. 19–31.
6. Behravesh, M. (2018), “State revisionism and ontological (in)security in international politics: The complicated case of Iran and its nuclear behavior”, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol. 21, pp. 836–857.
7. Bell, M.Z. and Macfarlane, A. (2022), “ ‘Fixing’ the nuclear waste problem? The new political economy of spent fuel management in the United States”, Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 91, pp. 102–728.
8. Diulina, Yu.M. (2013), “Threshold states in the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a global problem of the modernity”, in Natsional’nyi universitet Evrazii imeni L.N. Gumileva [L.N. Gumilev Eurasian National University], available at: https:// dspace.enu.kz/bitstream/handle/data/6680/problema-sovremennosti.pdf (Accessed 25 Sept. 2024).
9. Fusu, L.I. (2018), “The concept of liminality: approaches, the essence of the concept, the characteristics of manifestation in society at the present stage”, Kant, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 143–148.
10. Harrington, A. and Englert, M. (2014), “How much is enough? The politics of technology and weaponless nuclear deterrence”, in Mayer, M., Carpes, M. and Knoblich, R., eds., in The global politics of science and technology, vol. 2: Global power shift, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 287–302.
11. Higgott, R.A. and Kim, R.N. (1997), “The international politics of liminality: relocating Australia in the Asia Pacific”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 169–186.
12. Mälksoo, M. (2012), “The challenge of liminality for international relations theory”, Review of International Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 481–494.
13. Rozelle, L. (2010), “Resurveying DeLillo’s ‘white space on map’: Liminality and communitas in underworld”, Studies in the Novel, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 443–452.
14. Smart, I. (1978), “Janus: The nuclear God”, The World Today, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 118–127.
15. Spennemann, D.H.R. (2016), “Keeping It out of the open: The production and collections history of Asterix und das Atomkraftwerk as an example of the liminality of underground literature”, Leipziger Jahrbuch für Buchgeschichte, vol. 24, pp. 161–201.
16. Teodorescu, B. and Călin, R.A. (2015), “The base articulations of the liminality concept”, Review of European Studies, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 97–102.
17. Wilkins, T.S. and Abbondanza, G. (2022), “What makes an awkward power? Recurrent patterns and defining characteristics”, in Abbondanza, G. and Wilkins, T.S., eds. Awkward powers: Escaping traditional great and middle power theory. Global political transitions, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp. 375–404.
Review
For citations:
Toropchin G.V. Between zero and one: liminality of nuclear threshold states. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations". 2024;(6):12-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-6-12-25