Suchergebnisse

1.Introduction -- 2. Coloniality -- 3. Postcoloniality -- 4. Political Order -- 5. Oil Governance -- 6. Oil Companies -- 7. Oil Concessions -- 8. Oil Politics -- 9. Oil Rivalries -- 10. Decolonization of Oil -- 11.The Arab Oil Weapon -- 12.OPEC and IEA -- 13.Conclusion.

This book examines the British colonial and American post-colonial oil policies toward the Persian Gulf from a postcolonial critical perspective, taking into account the coloniality and postcoloniality of power structures. It examines colonization, decolonization, and postcolonization of oil in the Persian Gulf through the parameters of political order, formulated policies, market structure, concession system, imperial/national interests, and great powers rivalry. In this work, the author uses qualitative, theory testing, and comparative case study method. There are several reasons that are encouraging for the selection of these two cases: first, British colonial and American post-colonial oil policies toward the Gulf region show similar patterns of domination and exploitation; second, both colonial and post-colonial great powers consider the control of the Gulf oil among their national security priorities; third, both use military interventions, install military bases and involve in coup d'etat in the region to maintain their established oil order; and fourth, both justifies their colonial/imperial oil order in the region with humanitarian objectives such as 'civilizing mission' or 'democratization.' In this research, the state-level of analysis is used to explore the oil policies of Anglo-American governments. The governance history of oil in the Persian Gulf can be broadly divided into three phases: (1) the colonial period 1901-1950; (2) the decolonization period 1950-1972; and (3) the post-colonial period, since the mid-1970s to the present. Chronologically, the oil policies of Anglo-American governments are examined in loose temporal and spatial contexts, and each period is introduced in independent chapters, but they are complementary to each other

Echenique and Yenmez (2015), in Theorem 2, characterize choice rules that are "generated by reserves for the priority." We show that the "only if" part is not correct. We exhibit a choice rule that is generated by reserves for the priority but violates one of their axioms. We reformulate the axiom and repair the result. (JEL D47, H75, I21, I28)