Suchergebnisse

One of the oldest distinctions in philosophical discourse is that between "words about words" and "words about things."' Much scholarship among international lawyers and political scientists, as well as table-talk of diplomats and other practitioners concerning the somewhat airy concept of sovereignty, has suffered all too much from a failure to appreciate the confusion that flows from treating a word as though it were a fact. Now come to the table two pairs of scholars with contrasting interpretations of the central word of international law, sovereinty: at one end, international lawyers Abram and Antonia Handler Chayes; and at the other, political scientists Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck. Ironically, however, the lawyers unveil a "new sovereignty" by employing a variety of social science methodologies to explicate a nonlegal, "managerial" approach to the study of the transfer of state authority to international institutions. In a converse irony, the political scientists have appropriated the international lawyer's interpretive canon, parsing international judicial and arbitral decisions and combing state practice as evidence of customary international law, to advance an essentially traditional conception of sovereignty as state sovereignty.

Applies the medical model in the form of lung cancer to analogize general global well-being with an eye toward future world health catastrophe. It is argued that economic globalization is widening the gap between rich & poor thus widening the gap between healthy & unhealthy, setting the stage for coming health crises. Several suggestions underpinned by notions of social justice & ethics, are proffered to curtail the global trajectory toward catastrophe. It is suggested that an increasingly interdependent world & the current inadequate realist morality call for a long-term perspective on rational self-interest involving sustainable development, human rights, & peaceful globalization from below. 2 Figures, 2 Graphs, 45 References. R. Whyte

Progress in the study of international politics depends on systematic, rigorous theory and empirical testing. International Relations is most useful when scholars can identify with some confidence the causal forces that drive foreign policy and international interactions, not when they use their detailed empirical knowledge to offer opinions, however intelligent and well informed. Deterrence theory, the democratic peace research program, and the political economy of trade policy demonstrate the importance of both theory and empirical research in enhancing the understanding of international relations. The bargaining theory of war and open economy politics are the current frontiers of research on international relations and promise even greater understanding in the future.

"Die internationalen Finanzmärkte wurden in den 1990er Jahren von zahlreichen heftigen Krisen erschüttert. Die Forderung nach der Steigerung der finanziellen Stabilität, verstanden vor allem als Verhinderung von schweren Krisen, wird deshalb seit einigen Jahren immer wieder erhoben. Diese finanzielle Stabilität ist ein globales öffentliches Gut: Vorteile erwachsen für alle Länder und kein Land kann vor der Nutzung ausgeschlossen werden. Betrachtet man allerdings bestimmte Maßnahmen im Detail, zeigen sich erhebliche Hindernisse. So kann die Tobin-Steuer selbst in modifizierter Form nicht für finanzielle Stabilität sorgen. Dazu sind radikalere Maßnahmen wie die Beschränkung des internationalen Kapitalverkehrs oder die Schaffung eines globalen Gläubigers der letzten Instanz notwendig. Allerdings sind die großen OECD-Länder gegenwärtig zu dieser Form der internationalen Zusammenarbeit in keiner Weise bereit." (Autorenreferat)

The fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident remains an urgent priority for the international maritime industry, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). Following a series of notorious criminal cases in different jurisdictions over two decades, the unfair treatment of seafarers came to the fore, the cases drawing sharp criticism from commentators and especially the international maritime industry. There were great expectations that the resulting guidelines on fair treatment of seafarers in the event of a maritime accident (the Guidelines) would ensure the fair treatment of seafarers. But as this article demonstrates, the expectations have not been fulfilled, and the rights in the Guidelines are often theoretical and illusory, rather than practical and enforceable. This article breaks new ground in four major respects. First, in 2012, a survey of 3480 seafarers, constructed by the author, found that 81 per cent of seafarers who had faced criminal charges considered that they were treated unfairly. Secondly, the article reports the responses of member states of the IMO to another survey designed by the author which shows that state practice on the implementation of the Guidelines is widely divergent. Thirdly, guidance for member states on the implementation of the Guidelines is proposed for the first time, heretically eschewing an orthodox model law and advocating instead discretionary implementation by reference to the Guidelines. Possible counter-contentions to the guidance are raised and rejected in detail. Fourthly, as a judgment handed down by the author indicates, the Guidelines can be applied by courts without implementing legislation; but this approach is not advocated. Instead, the guidance aims to facilitate the most convenient and expeditious implementation of the Guidelines, ensuring their widespread promulgation and implementation and reversing the incidence of unfair treatment of 1.5 million seafarers around the world.