5. GROSSRAUM AND GEOPOLITICS: RESITUATING SCHMITT IN AN ATLANTIC CONTEXT

Contemporary theorists of international relations and historians of empire have found utility in the spatial theory of “Grossraum,” or “great space,” that Carl Schmitt developed in the 1930s and 40s. This article asks whether Schmitt's concept of Grossraum can be fully disentangled from its German history—from the Nazi pursuit of Lebensraum in which it eventually culminated, but with which it is not identical either. I argue that Schmitt's Grossraum theory is neither merely a symptomatic reflection of the Third Reich's objectives, nor a free‐floating theory with strong potential for critiquing imperialism, but is best approached as an important moment in the transatlantic conversation among empires that unfolded between 1890 and 1945 about the sources, methods, and prerogatives of global power. It compares Schmitt with other figures in German geopolitics such as Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Haushofer in order to establish a genealogy of the distinction between land and sea powers, arguing that Schmitt's writings on Grossraum modernize and transmit to the twentieth century the most influential theories of political geography and geopolitics developed in the Atlantic world between 1890 and 1930.     

Multilateral cooperation and the prevention of nuclear terrorism: pragmatism over idealism

The second Nuclear Security Summit on 26–27 March 2012 in Seoul provides an important opportunity to gauge international consensus on the threat posed by nuclear terrorism, and to evaluate progress in the development of multilateral cooperative efforts to prevent it. However, the ‘nuclear security’ agenda has long been complicated by the complexity of the issues it covers and diverging perceptions of the risks and threats in this area. Further complications involve the politics that have constrained the development of formal cooperative approaches and the patchwork nature of the existing multilateral policy architecture. While the Summit is unlikely to go very far in mitigating these complications, it will nonetheless provide impetus to multilateral efforts to strengthen the international regulative framework in this area and, in the process, to develop the norm of nuclear security. Beyond Seoul several priorities stand out. Nuclear safety and nuclear security need to be approached in a more balanced way by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it must also be allowed to adopt a more joined‐up, and less stove‐piped, approach to nuclear governance across the safeguards, safety and security fields. Developing countries that are concerned by growing demands for strengthened nuclear security arrangements need greater reassurance from those proposing them that these will not undermine their rights under the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty to pursue civil applications of nuclear energy. Greater progress also needs to be made in universalizing the key nuclear security conventions and their amendments, and attention should be given to how momentum and high‐level political buy‐in to the nuclear security agenda can be maintained in the future both as part of, and beyond, the Nuclear Security Summit process.     

THE SUBURBANIZATION OF TORONTO OFFICES

Office decentralization in Toronto between 1951 and 1986, and the evolution of three case study office centres from 1966 to 1986, were investigated. While five-sixths of Toronto's office building space was in the central core in 1951, by1986 half of it was elsewhere, mainly in 19 office centres. Questionnaires elicited the characteristics of office establishments in the centres, and interviews probed their location decisions. The case study centres differ in establishment size, branch /head office proportions, dominant office functions and functional diversity. Highway access is critical in office location decisions, while the suitability of public transit, commuting, and accommodation may be considered. The findings generally support recent stage models of suburban office growth, provided that the definition of ‘suburban downtowns’ is amended, and indicate a possible hierarchy of office locations. Dans cet article, on étudie le phénomène de la décentralisation des bureaux à Toronto durant la période 1951 a 1986, ainsi que ?évolution de trois complexes de bureaux, ici retenus à titre ?étude de cas, pour la période 1966 à 1986. En 1951, les 5/6 de ?espace de bureaux à Toronto se trouvait dans le quartier des affaires. Mais en 1986, la moitié de cet espace était ailleurs, concentré notammentdans 19 complexes de bureau. Les caractéristiques des bureaux particuliers situés dans les complexes ont été formulées à partir des questionnaires tandis que des entrevues ont servi à préciser les facteurs qui ont influencé le choix ?emplacement de bureaux. Ceux que nous avons considérés diffèrent selon les dimensions des bureaux, la proposition des succursales, du siège social, les fonctions principales du bureau et la diversité de celles-ci. ?accès aux autoroutes joue un rǒle crucial dans le choix de ?emplacement ?un bureau, mais ?efficacité des transports en commun, la longueur du trajet résidence-bureau et la qualité du logement peuvent ětre également pris en considération. Dans ?ensemble, nos résultats confirment les modèles récents de croissance par étapes des bureaux en banlieue, tout en signalant la possibilité?une hierarchie ?emplacement.