Suchergebnisse

"Of the four essays comprised in this volume, two were originally delivered as addresses at Princeton university. The other two appeared first in the magazines"--Publisher's note. ; The independence of the executive.--The government in the Chicago strike of 1894.--The bond issues.--The Venezuelan boundary controversy. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article examines two empirical research traditions—experimental economics and the social identity approach in social psychology—that may be seen as attempts to falsify and verify the theory of collective intentionality, respectively. The article argues that both approaches fail to settle the issue. However, this is not necessarily due to the alleged immaturity of the social sciences but, possibly, to the philosophical nature of intentionality and intentional action. The article shows how broadly Davidsonian action theory, including Hacking's notion of the looping effect of the human sciences, can be developed into an argument for the view that there is no theory-independent true nature of intentional action. If the Davidsonian line of thought is correct, the theory of collective intentionality is, in a sense, true if we accept the theory.

Introduction: the BRICS as a club -- Global power shift: the BRICS, building capabilities for influence -- BRICS collective financial statecraft: four cases -- Motives for BRICS collaboration: views from the five capitals -- Conclusion: whither the BRICS?

Certain institutional changes in the advanced industrial societies are said to be leading toward postindustrial, if not postmodern, forms of sociopolitical organization. Scientific and technological developments are usually seen as the generating forces of such change, a major dimension of which is thought to be a growing pre-occupation with goods and services which are produced and/or purchased communally.There exists a parallel phenomenon in the modern interstate system, namely, a growing incidence of joint production and joint regulation by states, much of it in scientific and technological fields. Factors both leading to and limiting such joint activities, and some consequences of different kinds of collective decision making and administrative arrangements for the interstate system, are here explored.It is an explicit aim of this inquiry, in addition, to avoid the evolutionary or functionalist assumptions informing much of the contemporary study of international organization. Instead, I argue that the processes of international organization are generated by how and why states choose from among alternate modes of performing tasks, both national and international, under varying conditions of possibilities and constraints. The bulk of the article develops and illustrates permutations of this basic posture.The analysis suggests a number of future modifications of the modern interstate system, and of the modern state as an actor in that system. But these modifications share little with the kinds of international arrangements and structures past theories have led us to expect.

The article devoted to the «surveying» of foreign citizens in Russia in 1812, which has become a significant and complex procedure. The results of these actions gave historians reach material for depicturing a detailed socio-historical portrait of foreign nationals, who has happened to be in Saratov region at the beginning of Patriotic War.