Suchergebnisse

The Arab League Collective Security Pact was signed by the government of Jordan on February 16, 1952.1 The pact had previously been initialed by the six other members of the Arab League and ratified by the governments of Egypt and Syria. Ratification by the governments of Iraq and Jordan followed in March.3 In accordance with Article 13, the treaty would come into effect for the ratifying states fifteen days after receipt by the Secretariat General of instruments of ratification from four states

On January 6, 1950 the Council again turned to the consideration of the dispute between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and resolved to 1) convoke the Organ of Consultation at a time and place to be determined in the future, 2) constitute. itself provisionally as the Organ of Consultation, and 3) appoint a committee to conduct an on-the-spot investigation of the facts of the situation and their antecedents. The Council then communicated its decisions on the matter to the United Nations Security Council.

The fifth meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the American Republics was held at Petropolis, Brazil, from August 15 to September 2, 1947. The main task of the conference was to translate into more permanent form the system of inter American collective security established by the Act of Chapultepec. This act, drawn up as a temporary war measure by the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace in March 1945, had for the first time envisaged the use of force by the inter-American system.

Recent reports indicating that large portions of land (estimated 50-80m hectares) have been bought by international investors in middle- and low-income countries, with roughly two-thirds of those purchases occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, calls for a cursory appraisal of the implications of the trend of land grabbing for West African food security. This study reviews cases of land grabbing by foreign investors in West Africa, identifies the possible drivers of large-scale land acquisition by foreign investors in the region, and discusses the implications of the findings for agricultural and land policy reforms in West Africa. Land transactions involving foreign investors have increased in the area over the past 10 years. Over 100,000 ha have been documented in Nigeria. Ghana and Mali have many significant transactions on land by foreign investors. Several investors have more than 100,000ha. Burkina Faso has one significant land transaction (200,000 ha) while Niger and Senegal have relatively small land transactions. Most lands grabbed in West Africa were profit driven (by biofuel investors) and were made under the guise of using the lands acquired for agricultural investments. There were noted dangers in the deals with respect to food security drive, food safety, environmental safety, employment generation, and land tenure threats, which endangered peace, sovereignty, and the economic wellbeing of citizens. We recommend applying a regional approach by African countries, implementing land reforms that will involve the local communities who own the land, stopping long-term leasing beyond 50 years, building capacity, and creating awareness about land transactions of large magnitudes.

The question of when or if a nation should intervene in another country's affairs is one of the most important concerns in today's volatile world. Taking John Stuart Mill's famous 1859 essay "A Few Words on Non-Intervention" as his starting point, international relations scholar Michael W. Doyle addresses the thorny issue of when a state's sovereignty should be respected and when it should be overridden or disregarded by other states in the name of humanitarian protection, national self-determination, or national security. In this time of complex social and political interplay and increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, Doyle reinvigorates Mill's principles for a new era while assessing the new United Nations doctrine of responsibility to protect. In the twenty-first century, intervention can take many forms: military and economic, unilateral and multilateral. Doyle's thought-provoking argument examines essential moral and legal questions underlying significant American foreign policy dilemmas of recent years, including Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1242/thumbnail.jpg

Why do autocratic powers like China evoke negative attitudes from the citizens of some countries but not from others? Factors like economic and security threat are of course part of the answer, but this study finds that ideational factors exert a distinct effect. Drawing from social theories of the democratic peace and international relations more broadly, it observes that governments and their citizens form communities along ideological lines, which most prominently includes differences in liberal democracy. This argument implies that people within the liberal community tend to view authoritarian powers like China as having a harmful influence on the world. Furthermore, democratic citizens will evaluate China from the standpoint of liberal democratic norms. Because liberal norms are not just about having multiparty, electoral institutions, people's opinions on China could vary even if its single-party political system does not change. Three empirical studies drawing from cross-national observational data, two original survey experiment, and a difference-in-differences analysis of historical polls confirm that liberal democracy affects foreign perceptions about China. The findings advance debates about soft power, democracy and public opinion, and the role of ideology in international society.

Land law in the West Bank is a mess of multi-layered legal regimes representing the complicated political history of the region. From this confusion flow some of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today, such as the legitimacy of settlements and the legality of the security barrier. Whether one's concerns regarding the "Question of Palestine" are humanitarian or political, one fact is clear: the legal muddle of land law must be addressed.But addressing the law first requires that we understand what that law is. This paper is not an investigation of the relative legitimacy under domestic or international law of each of the innumerable changes that were made to land law over the course of multiple legal regimes. Rather, it attempts to develop a purely descriptive answer to the seemingly straightforward question: what is the state of land law? To do this, I reconstruct the law of land as much as possible, from the still-operative, sedimentary layers of Ottoman, British, Jordanian, Israeli, Palestinian and international law. In compiling this information, I hope to contribute to the efforts to fully understand where we are, so we can honestly assess where we may go from here.

This article examines the ways in which diplomacy is adapting in the information age, to the increased pressures and opportunities that changes in information and communication technologies and capabilities provide. The interaction of technological, economic, political and social changes, such as globalisation, the development and rapid expansion of information and communication technologies, the increasing ability of citizens and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to access and use these technologies, and the rise of transnational and co-operative security issues, are affecting the ways in which governments conduct their diplomacy. These changes are giving rise to what might be termed a 'new public diplomacy'. This can be characterised by a blurring of traditional distinctions between international and domestic information activities, between public and traditional diplomacy and between cultural diplomacy, marketing and news management. The article focuses on a comparison of Britain and Canada. It argues that, in Britain, the new public diplomacy features a repackaging of diplomacy to project a particular image to an overseas audience, which is largely treated as a passive recipient of diplomacy. However, in Canada the new public diplomacy is characterised by a more inclusive approach to diplomacy, enabling citizen groups and NGOs to play a greater role in international affairs.

The first pillars of social security systems widely differ across European countries both in the contribution rate and intra-generational redistribution. What would be the impact of these differences if EU citizens had free access to all systems? This paper aims to highlight some basic features of this question in a very simple two countries model. ; Les régimes de retraite de base des divers pays européens diffèrent par le niveau de leur taux de cotisation et par la redistribution effectuée au sein d'une même génération de retraités. Quel serait l'impact de ces différences si les citoyens de l'Union Européenne pouvaient choisir librement entre les divers régimes ? Nous tentons ici d'apporter quelques éléments de réponse à cette question en analysant un modèle très simple à deux pays.