Putin and the Two Fears of the Prince


This text is the second in a two half collection. Learn the primary piece here.

Concern shouldn’t be the primary emotion that involves thoughts when excited about leaders like Vladimir Putin. Anger, defiance, or contempt – these are extra prefer it. There are neuropsychological and semantic causes for that: some feelings ‘need’ to be expressed. Anger, for instance, fulfils an necessary perform in speaking {that a} purple line has been crossed (van Kleef et al. 2008: 16f). A deeper look into modern affective science suggests that each one feelings have physiological manifestations. Particular ‘microexpressions,’ for examples – contractions of facial muscle tissue that final for only a break up second – that can not be suppressed or hid (Ekman 2003: 15). Analogously, so-called appraisal theories of emotion suggest that physiological ‘activation’ precedes cognitive appraisal of a scenario (Lazarus 1991; Tomaka et al. 1997: 63). Even when sociocultural norms, identities, or values ought to put constraints on the person’s behaviour, feelings typically override them (Turner 2009: 341). These observations must also apply to political operatives, together with the Russian chief.

In a contribution to E-Worldwide Relations in November 2020 I argued that we would use emotion as a conceptual software in overseas coverage evaluation. Specializing in worry, the piece recommended that human emotion presents us with a phenomenon that has been comprehensively studied throughout psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience and that it’s, to an extent, generalisable. It would due to this fact provide us some analytical leverage and a method to work out a few of the thornier epistemological and methodological points going through the self-discipline: the talk over the primacy of construction or company, bridging the hole between idea and follow, or the seemingly unavoidable alternative of a degree of study. This text, centred once more on the emotion of worry, probes the plausibility of a few of the theoretical factors made beforehand by making use of it to episodes in Russian-Western relations.

It was an evaluation of the tutorial literature on Russian overseas coverage that triggered my curiosity in psychological explanations within the first place. Prevailing theoretical paradigms have a combined observe report in guiding the evaluation of Russian overseas coverage, not to mention producing predictions of future coverage strikes. A telling instance, when surveyed in late February 2014, solely 13.9% of IR students thought that Russia would intervene militarily in response to the political disaster in Ukraine, whereas greater than half dominated out that risk (Maliniak et al. 2014). There’s, nevertheless, a large spectrum of opinion. Some social constructivists recommend that Russia’s assertive flip is the product of a strategy of id formation in relation to Europe (e.g. Neumann 2016; Tsygankov 2016). Evaluation knowledgeable by liberal idea traces Russian overseas coverage again to authoritative tendencies in home politics (e.g. Lynch 2016; McFaul 2018). On account of the anomaly of the time period, reference should be made to a abstract of what ‘liberalism’ refers to within the context of overseas coverage evaluation (see Doyle 2012). Structural realism, however, continues to emphasize that Russian behaviour is the inevitable results of defective, ideologically pushed Western coverage (e.g. Mearsheimer 2014). Coverage prescriptions drawing on these analyses range accordingly.

These theories endure from some deficiencies with respect to modelling the behaviour of particular person decision-makers within the social context. Structural realism and liberalism depend on the rational actor assumption, whereas a lot of the constructivist scholarship, emphasising the intersubjective nature of the social world, presents no distinct idea of particular person actorhood. Each rationalist and constructivist fashions depend on a conventional, ‘cognitivist’ outlook, i.e. they concentrate on components that may be ‘identified’ and ‘understood,’ which doesn’t mirror the state-of-the-art in determination science. These shortcomings however, the query that emerged in my analysis is whether or not we’re lacking one thing in finding out patterns of change and continuity in Russian-Western relations, and extra typically, in analysing states’ overseas insurance policies. Had been students making ok use of all of the explanatory instruments obtainable?

The broader motion in IR selling re-engagement with human nature and a concentrate on affective phenomena, of which my work is an element, ought to due to this fact not be mistaken for an effort to disprove rationalist or constructivist fashions. Actually, in lots of cases, affective science corroborates the assumptions made by different theories. The target is to showcase the usefulness of emotion as a lens on overseas coverage, connecting materials capabilities, governing buildings, concepts, and the person. Within the spirit of Graham Allison’s insightful research of the Cuban Missile Disaster, the principle objective of ‘conceptual lenses’ is to match and distinction. By doing that, he recommended, ‘we see what every magnifies, highlights, and divulges in addition to what every blurs or neglects’ (Allison 1971: v).

Some affective phenomena already characteristic prominently within the subject of overseas coverage evaluation. Educational curiosity in Russia’s (in addition to China’s) standing considerations, particularly Russian responses to perceived disrespect or denial of its nice energy standing, has been rising steadily (e.g. Larson and Shevchenko 2010; Forsberg 2014; Tsygankov 2014). In worldwide politics, standing is extra than simply good to have. As ‘popularity for energy,’ standing makes states safer and allows them to realize their goals with out having to resort to power (Gilpin 1981: 31). Historic nice energy standing might also additional the ruling elite’s home targets by offering an idea round which to construct nationwide id and strengthen neighborhood ties. The prototypical response to a denial of standing, i.e. not recognizing one other’s rightful place within the social hierarchy, is a few type of anger. It might be argued, due to this fact, that the literature on standing considerations is constructed round psychological claims regarding social id, perceptions of ‘unfair’ remedy, and anger. On this context, anger, defiance, or outrage needs to be understood as extra than simply an automatic, primitive response however because the affective element of an try to revive standing. The purpose right here is that overseas coverage evaluation staked on standing considerations typically doesn’t make the connections between the idea of standing and affective expertise specific. Partaking extra totally with the psychology of standing looking for (and denial) in addition to the experiential by-products of anger ought to allow us to hypothesise beneath what circumstances sure considerations, reminiscent of safety, navy may, territory, standing, or values matter, and when one concern issues greater than one other.

The identical may be stated for worry. Regardless of its foundational place within the IR literature, the phenomenon has been studied predominantly inside rationalist frameworks of deterrence, bargaining, or strategic alternative. The methods through which the subjective expertise of worry or loss aversion impression determination makers on a private degree has acquired comparatively much less consideration. If some occasions in worldwide politics are primarily based on psychological processes, as appears to be an assumption underlying all of our conventional IR theories (if solely implicitly), it stands to purpose that the mechanisms by which these phenomena unfold ought to obtain extra consideration.

A staple class in explanations of Russian-Western relations is the previous’s worry of encirclement. It rests on each social and psychological components. By way of a strategy of socialisation, the historic precedent of a number of land invasions has implanted a way of insecurity in Russians. Partly, this has been, and continues to be bolstered by the scale of the nation and the related problem of defending its huge borders. In his idea of ‘affective geopolitics,’ Gerald Toal argues that whereas the scale of Russia’s territory already induced a ‘sense of vulnerability,’ it ‘has been accompanied by discourses about plots and encirclement schemes by historic enemies, portraying Russia as a besieged fortress.’ Schooling, tradition, faith, state holidays and rituals have created ‘the nation-state as an embodied situation’ (Toal 2017: 46-47). In different phrases, many Russians deeply care in regards to the safety and integrity of the motherland in ways in which appear unfamiliar to Western observers.

There isn’t any purpose to imagine this deep-seated concern doesn’t prolong to the state’s elites. As Neil MacFarlane (2016: 351) suggests:

Putin and his colleagues within the Soviet safety equipment had been acculturated into this notion of isolation, hostility, and menace of their childhood. That formation could have an effect on the cognitive framing of their present scenario. In different phrases, regardless of the attainable instrumental worth of their rhetoric, they might additionally consider what they are saying in regards to the menace from the West.

To this finish, deeper engagement with how worry of encirclement is being perceived by leaders, and the sorts of affective motion tendencies this may promote, could also be instructive. A few of the attainable penalties of worry are mentioned in my earlier article. Amongst them, ‘the fearful’ have a better tendency to establish future threats (together with ones that don’t exist) and they’re worse at calculating the prices and dangers of their selections. As a consequence, they may behave in a means that – even when supposed as defensive – is seen as threatening by others.

Whichever anxieties Russian elites may need already had had been exacerbated by the slide of the nation into chaos and corruption all through the Nineteen Nineties, and related emotions of powerlessness vis-à-vis a affluent and confident West. Particularly the choice of the US and its European companions to take navy motion in opposition to Yugoslavia in 1999, regardless of vocal protest from Moscow, marks an important turning level in relations. To today, the NATO bombing marketing campaign is used for instance of US hegemonic ambitions, pursued exterior the frequent framework of worldwide regulation, within the guise of humanitarian intervention. It challenged the post-Chilly Struggle function Russian coverage makers foresaw for the UNSC amongst worldwide establishments however extra importantly, their self-image. Other than the humiliation, Russians agreed that NATO intervention set a harmful precedent. Among the many elite, it implanted fears of Western-backed insurgencies within the ‘close to overseas’ and destabilisation in Russia’s personal peripheral areas. The ensuing defiant angle helped in formulating a typical imaginative and prescient of a Russian Federation that ought to restore its rightful standing as a terrific energy.

One Russian observer remarked that NATO had bombed not simply Serbia, but in addition the UN and post-Chilly Struggle Europe, ‘as an concept, as a political and civilizational venture’. For a lot of, ‘Gorbachev’s crystal dream of a “frequent European residence” lay in items’ (Grachev 2009). Such swan tune for Russian designs of a rules-based worldwide order may need masked a deeper, civilizational shift that started across the similar time. Up till the flip of the century, Europe was generally considered as ‘the principle observe of civilization’ (Putin 1999) – a mannequin to emulate. ‘We’re part of the Western European tradition. Irrespective of the place our individuals reside, within the Far East or within the south, we’re Europeans,’ the brand new president proclaimed in a speech earlier than the German Bundestag (Putin 2000: 169).

By the mid-2000s, views concerning Europe had modified significantly. Discuss of a ‘frequent European residence’ had given method to representations of Europe as one thing ‘different,’ ‘false,’ and even ‘rotten’ (Neumann 2016: 1392). It should be talked about that such representations didn’t come up out of nothing. Russian conceptions of Europe and ‘Western’ patterns of human improvement had advanced and shifted over centuries (see Greenfeld 1992: 267; MacFarlane 1994). Whether or not it was being considered positively or negatively, Europe has all the time been central to the Russian self-image and the psychological, ideational, and normative points of that relationship. The idea of Europe, MacFarlane argues, ‘occupies a psychological, in addition to an institutional and geographical, house’ and encompasses evolving views concerning ‘European’ concepts and norms (MacFarlane 1994: 237). Put in a different way, ideas of Russia and Europe are interdependent. Or, as Andrei Tsygankov places it: ‘the “self’s” evaluation of the “different” is topic to variations, relying on the “different’s” willingness to simply accept the “self’s” affect’ (Tsygankov 2018: 103).

This (re-)definition of the ‘self’ in relation to Europe helps clarify the downturn in Russian-Western relations from the mid-2000s onwards. Relying on whether or not the ‘self’ (Russia) and its affect is recognised or denied by the ‘different’ (Europe and the West), it might generate both hope or resentment and the notion of menace (Tsygankov 2018: 103). This has essential implications on whether or not the ‘self’ shall be primed towards benevolence or spite – cooperation or performing as a spoiler. Based on Tsygankov, this emotional evolution from worry to hope to frustration has been a recurring sample in Russian-Western relations because the 19th century:

Hope ceaselessly become frustration with what Russia noticed as the opposite aspect’s unwillingness to reciprocate and, in the end, distrust and worry that the Western nations certainly purpose to undermine Russia’s sovereignty and safety. Sustained worry and distrust on events become anger and anger-shaped insurance policies of abandoning cooperative initiatives and adopting patterns of defensive or assertive behaviour (Tsygankov 2014: 346).

Jack Barbalet, who studied the emotional results of differentially distributed ranges of energy and status, argues that when an ‘different’ turns into just too highly effective for one’s personal aspect to understand their pursuits, anger and resentment are sometimes accompanied by worry (Barbalet 1998: 133). In distinction to a state of affairs the place a scarcity of energy is considered as one’s personal failing and worry results in a flight response or social withdrawal, when the opposite aspect is blamed for one’s powerlessness, worry happens collectively with resentment and the response is more likely to be of the ‘preventing’ sort. ‘Such perceptions,’ Turner writes, ‘could also be mobilized by ideologies or come up spontaneously, however in both case, very intense feelings like vengefulness are aroused, and these are the feelings of violence’ (Turner 2009: 350).

In direction of the tip of Putin’s second time period, these feelings had been on full show. Most famously, when he launched a verbal tirade in opposition to US unipolarity on the 2007 Munich Safety Convention: ‘(…) the US, has overstepped its nationwide borders in each means. That is seen within the financial, political, cultural and academic insurance policies it imposes on different nations. (…) It leads to the truth that nobody feels protected. I need to emphasise this – nobody feels protected!’ In August of the next 12 months, Russia’s assertiveness manifested itself in simple phrases. Putin responded with overwhelming power to a Georgian assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, crippling the Georgian navy in all however 5 days. Russian actions imposed a heavy toll on civilians, too, and had been met with vehement criticism from the Western world.

The subjective hierarchy of considerations can be utilized to clarify why Russian selections within the early stage of the conflict didn’t appear to consider potential repercussions of ‘disproportionate’ motion in opposition to Georgia. These included, for instance, the specter of sanctions, capital flight, the elevated intractability of the conflict the longer it will final, and the humiliation dealt by the refusal of even some CIS states to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The affective depth of officers’ worry and outrage outweighed such potential penalties of taking motion. As these penalties turned tougher to keep away from, their impression on coverage appreciated. By recognising that Russian conduct through the August Struggle was closely affectively charged, we are able to sq. the size and depth of the preliminary invasion with the choice, simply 5 days later, to desist from pushing on to Tbilisi and forcing the Georgian president from energy.

In 2013, Ukraine’s transfer to conclude (and later refuse to signal) an Affiliation Settlement with the EU set in movement one other collection of fateful occasions, culminating within the annexation of Crimea in late March 2014. In marked distinction to the majority of Western professional opinion and media protection, notable IR theorist John Mearsheimer blamed the West for the disaster as a result of it had fallen prey to ‘liberal delusions’ and ignored the political actuality of simply how necessary sustaining management over its borderlands was to Russian elites (Mearsheimer 2014). Regardless of how one evaluates Mearsheimer’s argument, his structural realist tackle Ukraine highlights the function of worry in a lot of our classical frameworks of IR idea which can be utilized to check instances in worldwide politics.

Realism typically describes politics as decided by the anarchical construction of the worldwide system (structural realism) or the lust for energy inherent in human nature (classical realism). Nonetheless, realist politics might also be traced to worry. When considered by way of the prism of worry, the pursuit of energy shouldn’t be an finish in itself however an important survival technique. Classical realists said this fairly clearly: ‘energy struggles are seen as emanating both from the animus dominandi of human nature or from worry, or from a mixture of the 2’ (Neumann and Sending 2010: 685). Structural realists, too, regardless of their emphasis on the steadiness of energy between states, make psychological assumptions; the idea’s state-centrism merely disguises its ontological foundations in human nature (Freyberg-Inan 2004: 3; Johnson and Thayer 2016).

Russian overseas coverage evaluation knowledgeable by ‘liberal’ idea has tended to be diametrically against structural realist conclusions. Whereas the time period doesn’t denote the identical, uniform clarification throughout instances, liberal accounts typically assume the same, Western-centric vantage level. Ranging from this normatively charged place, Russian overseas coverage typically serves as an inverse template, a ‘darkish double’ of US overseas coverage (Foglesong 2007: 11). As a consequence, liberal explanations of Russian behaviour typically dovetail with the official US overseas coverage line. Evidently, when coverage prescriptions precede evaluation, explanations of state conduct are considerably constrained. Moreover, a liberal place may blind the analyst to seeing how the impression of the insurance policies of 1’s ‘personal’ aspect are being perceived. For instance, why it’s that NATO enlargement, recognising Kosovo’s independence, or the development of a missile defence system in Europe are met with such fierce rejection by Russian officers are necessary questions in and of themselves which can be typically left unaddressed.

Such questions are tougher than they appear. The argument that Russia needs to be afraid of NATO, for instance, shouldn’t be supported by an evaluation of ‘exhausting,’ i.e. primarily military-related, safety components. Within the early Nineteen Nineties, Russia considered NATO as a relic of the Chilly Struggle, now devoid of a objective. Its plans for enlargement had been misguided, pushed by organisational inertia, however posed no actual menace (Patrushev 2005). Even after the newest section of enlargement, experts recommended that NATO presence on the Russian border quantities to extra of a ‘velocity bump’ than credible deterrence. Why, then, do Russian leaders hold referring to the alliance because the primary menace to nationwide safety? The reply needs to be sociopsychological: NATO’s objective has come to be considered as mounting a perennial assault on Russian tradition and values. The menace posed by the alliance is thus not being perceived as a navy however primarily a psychological or ontological one.

The ‘affective’ lens primes the analyst to be delicate to those nuances in leaders’ notion and motivation. Neither the Russian-Georgian conflict nor its incursion into Ukraine may be straight ascribed to an affective response, and even considered as the results of the worsening of relations between Russia, Europe, and the US. Nonetheless, the emergence of an embedded, nearly institutionalised, contemptuous angle in the direction of the West absolutely lowered the brink and aided Russian elites within the strategy of rationalisation and ex-post justification of decided motion.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in his treatise on management written for Lorenzo de’ Medici, recommended {that a} prince (or a state chief) ought to have two fears: ‘one inner, regarding his topics; the opposite exterior, regarding overseas powers. From the latter, he can defend himself by his efficient arms and his efficient allies. (…) regarding his topics, when exterior affairs don’t change, he has to worry that they might be plotting in secret. The prince will shield himself in opposition to this hazard by avoiding being both hated or despised and by conserving the individuals glad with him’ (Machiavelli and Bondanella 2005: 63-64).

In different phrases, the 2 fears of the prince are overseas invasion and common rebellion. Because the late Nineteen Nineties, Russian leaders have been fairly vocal about each sorts of worry, together with frequent references to Western-backed insurgencies within the ‘close to overseas’ and even Russia itself. In their very own expertise, the threats they reacted to may need been of a distinct sort, although. Slightly than a navy invasion, elites could also be extra delicate to challenges to a system of presidency they’ve constructed, undoubtedly with exhausting work, which offers for his or her livelihood and bodily well-being. Russian officers have recommended as a lot by expressing their aversion to democratisation and regime change – although such references are fewer than warnings of Western incursion utilizing a safety vernacular. ‘Since 2004, Putin and his colleagues have taken the democratization of neighbouring international locations, notably Ukraine, to be a compelling menace, not a lot to Russia, however to the construction of energy and revenue he and his colleagues have tried to construct in Russia’ (MacFarlane 2016: 351-52).

It’s attainable that Putin and people round him evoke worry of encirclement to self-rationalise different, extra existential anxieties. Mark Galeotti (2016) argues that, ‘to many in and near the Kremlin, Russia faces an actual menace, not borne by tanks and missiles however cultural influences, financial stress, and political penetration. That is, of their eyes, a civilizational menace aimed toward making Russia a homogenized, neutered, subaltern state.’ On the core of this civilizational menace lies the centrality of individualism and political competitors in Western societies which is pitted in opposition to collectivist wishes for stability and concentrated authority in Russian tradition (Tsygankov 2018: 102). The encirclement narrative is thus carefully related to at least one’s self-identification as ‘superior’ by way of a strategy of affective change. As Alexander Motyl (2014) observes, ‘the prevalence of Russia and Russian civilization are nonetheless carefully held values, as is the assumption that the West is hostile and that the nation wants a robust chief, Putin, to say Russia’s greatness and fight Western affect.’

Going ahead, Putin should face a easy actuality: with each extra month in workplace, he has extra to lose and fewer methods out. It has additionally been documented that long-standing leaders like him are vulnerable to psychopathologies like detachment, hubris, or worry of persecution (see Robertson 2015). For Putin, who is unquestionably satisfied that the prosperity and safety of Russia rely upon him, it isn’t simply his political legacy that’s at stake. Extra viscerally, the success of his insurance policies, the course of the nation, and the query of his succession have direct implications on his monetary and bodily safety. All of this raises the stakes within the notion of the chief significantly and offers fertile floor for high-intensity affective responses.


Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of determination: explaining the Cuban missile disaster (Little, Brown: Boston).

Averre, Derek. 2009. ‘From Pristina to Tskhinvali: the legacy of Operation Allied Pressure in Russia’s relations with the West’, Worldwide Affairs, 85: 575-91.

Barbalet, J. M. 1998. Emotion, social idea, and social construction: a macrosociological strategy (Cambridge College Press: Cambridge).

Doyle, Michael W. 2012. ‘Liberalism and International Coverage.’ in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Timothy Dunne (eds.), International coverage: theories, actors, instances (Oxford College Press: Oxford).

Ekman, Paul. 2003. Feelings revealed: understanding faces and emotions (Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London).

Foglesong, David S. 2007. The American mission and the ‘Evil Empire:’ the campaign for a ‘Free Russia’ since 1881 (Cambridge College Press: New York).

Forsberg, Tuomas. 2014. ‘Standing conflicts between Russia and the West: Perceptions and emotional biases’, Communist and Submit-Communist Research, 47: 323-31.

Freyberg-Inan, Annette. 2004. What strikes man: the realist idea of worldwide relations and its judgment of human nature (State College of New York Press: Albany).

Gilpin, Robert. 1981. Struggle and alter in world politics (Cambridge College Press: Cambridge).

Grachev, Andrei. 1999. ‘UN Hit by NATO Strikes,’ Moskovskie novosti 20-26 April, cited in: Averre 2009: 575.

Greenfeld, Liah. 1992. Nationalism: 5 roads to modernity (Harvard College Press: Cambridge, MA; London).

Johnson, Dominic, and Bradley Thayer. 2016. ‘The evolution of offensive realism’, Politics and the Life Sciences, 35: 1-26.

Larson, Deborah Welch, and Alexei Shevchenko. 2010. ‘Standing Seekers: Chinese language and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy’, Worldwide Safety, 34: 63-95.

Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation (Oxford College Press: New York; Oxford).

Lynch, Allen C. 2016. ‘The affect of regime kind on Russian overseas coverage in the direction of the West 1992–2015’, Communist and Submit-Communist Research, 49: 101-11.

MacFarlane, S. Neil. 1994. ‘Russian Conceptions of Europe’, Submit-Soviet Affairs, 10: 234-69.

———. 2016. ‘Kto Vinovat? Why is there a disaster in Russia’s relations with the West?’, Modern Politics, 22: 342-58.

Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Peter E. Bondanella. 2005. The prince (Oxford College Press: Oxford).

McFaul, Michael. 2018. From Chilly Struggle to sizzling peace: the within story of Russia and America (Allen Lane: London).

Mearsheimer, John. 2014. ‘Why the Ukraine Disaster Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin’, International Affairs, 93: 77-89.

Neumann, Iver B. 2016. ‘Russia’s Europe, 1991–2016: inferiority to superiority’, Worldwide Affairs, 92: 1381-99.

Neumann, Iver B., and Ole Jacob Sending. 2010. Governing the worldwide polity: follow, mentality, rationality (College of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor).

Patrushev, Nikolai. 2005. ‘Vyzov Prinyat,’ Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 22 December, cited in: Tsygankov 2018: 102.

Putin, Vladimir V. 2000. First Particular person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President (New York, NY: Public Affairs).

Toal, Gerard. 2017. Close to overseas: Putin, the West, and the competition over Ukraine and the Caucasus (Oxford College Press: New York).

Tomaka, Joe, Jim Blascovich, Jeffrey Kibler, and John Ernst. 1997. ‘Cognitive and physiological antecedents of menace and problem appraisal’, Journal of persona and social psychology, 73: 63-72.

Tsygankov, Andrei P. 2014. ‘The irritating partnership: Honor, standing, and feelings in Russia’s discourses of the West’, Communist and Submit-Communist Research, 47: 345-54.

———. 2016. Russia’s overseas coverage: change and continuity in nationwide id (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: Lanham).

———. 2018. ‘The sources of Russia’s worry of NATO’, Communist and Submit-Communist Research, 51: 101-11.

Turner, Jonathan H. 2009. ‘The Sociology of Feelings: Primary Theoretical Arguments’, Emotion Assessment, 1: 340-54.

van Kleef, Gerben A., E. van Dijk, W. Steinel, F. Harinck, and I. van Beest. 2008. ‘Anger in social battle: Cross-situational comparisons and solutions for the longer term’, Group Choice and Negotiation, 17: 13-30.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations