Suchergebnisse

Theory of international trade is merged with models of political economy in order to illustrate puzzling issues in a world of rapid trade integration: How can regionalism and multilaterism be compatible and welfare be improved in a world of expanding trading blocks? How can a sustainable mechanism of trade integration be designed in Central Europe? How can foreign direct investment affect volumes and direction of trade? The Political Economy of Trade Integration reveals answers and policy implications

Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags stehen zwei deutsch-ungarische Wörterbücher, die von renommierten Lexikographen zusammengestellt worden waren und um die Jahrhundertwende (19./20. Jh.) erschienen. Nach der Darstellung des politischen und sprachpolitischen Umfeldes dieses Zeitraums, insbesondere der Regelungen, die für die Verwendung und den Status des Ungarischen und des Deutschen im öffentlichen Leben galten, wird das Augenmerk darauf gerichtet, welche lexikalischen und grammatischen Informationen über Fremdwörter (äußere Mehrsprachigkeit) sowie über süd-, mittel- und norddeutsche Regionalismen (innere Mehrsprachigkeit) in der Makro- und Mikrostruktur erscheinen. Durch die Beschreibung der diesbezüglichen Tendenzen gewinnt man einen Überblick darüber, welche Entscheidungen die Herausgeber beider Wörterbücher in der lexikografischen Handhabung der (übrigens für die ungarischen Benutzer Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts alles andere als fremden) Mehrsprachigkeit trafen.

Der vorliegende Artikel geht von der allgemeinen These eines Trends von Government zu Governance aus und testet diese anhand einer vergleichenden Studie von acht europäischen Metropolregionen. Urbane Räume werden aufgrund eines anhaltenden Bevölkerungszuwachses immer wichtigere Akteure in einer globalisierten Welt und stehen daher zunehmend im Zentrum von Governance Studien, die entsprechend des New Regionalism ebenfalls von einem Trend zu netzwerkorientierten Entscheidungsstrukturen ausgehen. Die hier vorgelegte Studie zeigt jedoch auf, dass keinesfalls von einem eindeutigen Trend gesprochen werden kann, sondern je nach Kontext unterschiedliche Entwicklungen regionaler politischer Systeme zu beobachten sind. Die geopolitische Lage, das nationale Regierungssystem und die Intensität des Problemdrucks werden als entscheidende Faktoren identifiziert, die beeinflussen, ob neue Formen von Government oder Governance entstehen oder bestehende Strukturen beibehalten werden.

Book reviewed in this article:Persistent Permeability? regionalism, localism, and globalization in the Middle East: by Bassel F. Salloukh and Rex Brynen, eds.A History of the Modern Middle East: by William L. ClevelandMiddle East at the Crossroads: the Changing Political Dynamics and the Foreign Policy Challenges: by Manochehr Dorraj, ed.Conflict and Peace in the Middle East: National Perceptions and United States‐Jordan Relations: by Hatem Shareef Abu‐LebdehNation‐Building: A Middle East Recovery Program: by Jerry M. Rosenberg

Provides a review, assessment, & forecast of security-related events around the world broken out by region: the Americas, Europe & Russia, Middle East & Persian Gulf, Asia & Australia, & Africa. US strategic policy issues are also highlighted in light of the dominance of the US-led Iraq invasion in world affairs; its impact on regional & global security remains uncertain. Other issues of scrutiny include terrorism, rogue states, international trade, regionalism, regional conflict resolutions, & state-level political developments. 5 Maps. J. Zendejas

Spricht man heute von 'England', so ist damit strenggenommen nur eine Nation des Vereinigten Königreiches angesprochen, gemeint sind im allgemeinen aber auch die drei nichtenglischen Nationen Schottland, Wales und Nordirland, kurz: Großbritannien oder weiter gefaßt: das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien, in dem nationenbezogene wie auch regionenbezogene Regionalismen zu beobachten sind. Entscheidend für die ausgewertete Untersuchung ist der Konflikt zwischen den drei nichtenglischen Nationen und der britischen Zentralregierung. Als Konstituenten nationaler Identitätsausbildung zählen neben wirtschaftlich benachteiligten Positionen und historischen Argumenten für politische Eigenständigkeit besonders die identitätsstiftenden nationalen Besonderheiten (Sprache, Religion, kulturelles Erbe). Obwohl die Zentralregierung eine gewisse institutionelle Autonomie zubilligt, ist sie jedoch nicht in der Lage, durch weitere Devolutionspläne die Unfähigkeit zum innergesellschaftlichen Konfliktausgleich zu beseitigen (Beispiel Nordirland). (WEI)

The study of separatism as diffuse nationalism and regionalism, history of separatist movements, as well as the practice of the parties can come to the following conclusions. Separatism grows out of the crisis nations as ethno­social communities, which achieved an appropriate level identyfikovanosti regional elites of the political system, while maintaining the average and lower social groups, cultural and economic capital. As the nation form the state and political organization of ethnic communities, which in turn form within a suitable stratification of social groups , the process of nation­building can be considered as two parallel social processes ­ and elitoutvorennyu ­ class (group ­) formation . To refer to this process as sociology and political science researchers posluhovuyutsya concept of «nation ­ building» ­ « nation­building» Nation­building occurs when the respective ethnic community in terms of its internal stratification structure creates elites justifying appropriate doctrines ethnocentrism and manifest the appropriate identity. All separatist doctrines and movements are somehow based on ethnocentrism, which justifies the relationship with the community of the historical area, and the corresponding right to secede. On the other hand, separatist movements can take place not only in ethnic forms of ethnic communities to preserve their language and culture and other features, but also to preserve the identities of other components, including ­ religious and civilization. The most radical separatist types of projects is the separation of ethnic groups within their state on the indigenous historical territory. This version of separatism content coincides with nationalism and determines its functional purpose as a political expression of the interests of the ethnic group in the form of state. ; В результаті дослідження сепаратизму як дифузного націоналізму та регіоналізму, історичного розвитку сепаратистських рухів, а також практики відповідних партій можна дійти до наступних висновків. Сепаратизм виростає із кризи націй як етносоціальних спільнот, в яких досягається відповідний рівень ідентифікованості регіональних еліт із політичною системою при збереженні за середньою та нижчою соціальними групами культурного та економічного капіталу. Оскільки нація формою державно­політичної організації етнічних спільнот, які, в свою чергу, утворюють всередині себе відповідну стратифікацію соціальних груп, то процес націєтворення можна вважати паралельним двом соціальним процесам – елітоутворенню та класо­(групо­) утворенню. Для позначення цього процесу в соціології та політичних науках дослідники послуговуються концептом «nation – building» ­ «націєтворення». Націє­творення відбувається тоді, коли відповідна етнічна спільнота, в аспекті її внутрішньої стратифікаційної будови, створює еліти, які обґрунтовують відповідні доктрини етноцентризму і маніфестують відповідні ідентичності. Всі сепаратистські доктрини та рухи так чи інакше спираються на етноцентризм, який обґрунтовує зв'язок спільноти із відповідною історичною територією, та відповідне право на відокремлення. З іншого боку, сепаратистські рухи можуть відбуватись не лише в етнічних формах, задля збереження етнічних спільнот з їх мовно­культурними та іншими особливостями, але і задля збереження інших складових ідентичностей, зокрема – релігійної та цивілізаційної. Найбільш радикальними типами сепаратистських проектів є відокремлення етносів у межах своєї державності на автохтонній історичній території. Ця версія сепаратизму за змістом збігається із націоналізмом і визначає його функціональне призначення як політичне вираження інтересів етносу у вигляді держави. ; В результаті дослідження сепаратизму як дифузного націоналізму та регіоналізму, історичного розвитку сепаратистських рухів, а також практики відповідних партій можна дійти до наступних висновків. Сепаратизм виростає із кризи націй як етносоціальних спільнот, в яких досягається відповідний рівень ідентифікованості регіональних еліт із політичною системою при збереженні за середньою та нижчою соціальними групами культурного та економічного капіталу. Оскільки нація формою державно­політичної організації етнічних спільнот, які, в свою чергу, утворюють всередині себе відповідну стратифікацію соціальних груп, то процес націєтворення можна вважати паралельним двом соціальним процесам – елітоутворенню та класо­(групо­) утворенню. Для позначення цього процесу в соціології та політичних науках дослідники послуговуються концептом «nation – building» ­ «націєтворення». Націє­творення відбувається тоді, коли відповідна етнічна спільнота, в аспекті її внутрішньої стратифікаційної будови, створює еліти, які обґрунтовують відповідні доктрини етноцентризму і маніфестують відповідні ідентичності. Всі сепаратистські доктрини та рухи так чи інакше спираються на етноцентризм, який обґрунтовує зв'язок спільноти із відповідною історичною територією, та відповідне право на відокремлення. З іншого боку, сепаратистські рухи можуть відбуватись не лише в етнічних формах, задля збереження етнічних спільнот з їх мовно­культурними та іншими особливостями, але і задля збереження інших складових ідентичностей, зокрема – релігійної та цивілізаційної. Найбільш радикальними типами сепаратистських проектів є відокремлення етносів у межах своєї державності на автохтонній історичній території. Ця версія сепаратизму за змістом збігається із націоналізмом і визначає його функціональне призначення як політичне вираження інтересів етносу у вигляді держави.

According to analysts of regionalism, ours is an age of regions. The post-Cold war end to superpower rivalry was supposed to result in a withdrawal by global great powers from the periphery, leaving more room for autonomous regions. On the other hand, the literature on unipolarity argued that the unbalanced military superiority of the US hegemon was, combined with the globalization of the US financial capital and the war on terror, deepening America's global reach. However, commentary on US imperial overreach in the Iraq war and the global financial crisis, together with the rise of the so-called BRICS, has re-inspired speculation about a transition from unipolarity toward a global multi-polarity in which regional powers are acquiring new importance. Adapted from the source document.

Although there are a couple of promising, often criss-crossing arrangements to provide for sound regionalism & qualitative multilateralism firmly in place in North & Southeast Asia, this has not yet entailed strongly institutionalized structures binding the political actors involved. This is not at least true for the perspective of an East Asian Security Community. Major reasons are -- apart from the Sino-Japanese competition for regional supremacy -- nationalism, ongoing reservations against sharing in or giving away state sovereignty and, closely attached, the imperatives of political power held by the different actors in the region. East Asia therefore needs a "benevolent hegemone" -- a role which currently can, however, only be played by the U.S. References. Adapted from the source document.

Undoubtedly, regionalism expanded in the international arena at the end of the Cold War. This was due to the end of the East-West ideological confrontation, democratic changes that took place in Africa, America, Asia and Europe, new cross-border conflicts which hamper the security of the regions, as well as the phenomenon of globalization. In this context, the subject of regionalism constitutes one of the most important issues within the international agenda of the xxi century. This article has three main objectives. The first evaluates the variables sine qua non, which have played a primary role in light of the construction of regional integration during the first and second age of regional integrations. The second aims to find epistemological answers regarding the success or failure of regionalism. The third and last goal is to assess the emergence and evolution of regionalism in Latin America and North America. Likewise, the author analyses the results that regional integration has achieved in both regions of America (South and North), as well as the key problems which regional integration in Latin America and North America face. In order to understand the aforementioned phenomena this article is based on Karl W. Deutsch's game theory, the neo-institutional theory of Sven Steinmo and in the theory of complex security of Barry Buzan. It should be noted that the aforementioned theories of international relations are applied in the conclusion of this article. ; Sin lugar a dudas, al terminar la Guerra Fría los regionalismos se expandieron en el escenario internacional, debido al fin de la confrontación ideológica Este-Oeste; a las transformaciones democráticas que tuvieron efecto en África, América, Asia y Europa; a las nuevas problemáticas transfronterizas que afectan a las regiones en el marco del siglo XXI, y al fenómeno de la globalización. Este artículo tiene tres objetivos cardinales. El primero, evalúa las variables sine qua non que han tenido un peso determinante a la luz de la edificación de las integraciones regionales durante la primera y la segunda ola. El segundo, pretende encontrar respuestas epistemológicas en relación con el éxito o el fracaso de los regionalismos, y el tercer y el último objetivo analiza el surgimiento y la evolución de los regionalismos en América Latina y en América del Norte. En este mismo orden de ideas, se analizan los resultados que han cosechado las integraciones regionales en ambas regiones de América, así como las mayores problemáticas que enfrentan. Con la finalidad de comprender teóricamente lo expuesto en este artículo se utilizará la teoría de juegos de Karl W. Deutsch, la teoría neoinstitucional de Sven Steinmo, así como la teoría de la seguridad compleja de Barry Buzan. Cabe hacer alusión a que el autor aplicará el marco teórico anteriormente mencionado en las conclusiones generales de este artículo.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

In recent decades when the concept 'Regional Europe' is becoming more popular and regions are becoming more significant players on national and international levels, bigger attention is paid to regionalism studies and regionalisation processes as well. These processes have not bypassed Nordic countries, which promote cooperation within the Baltic region by involving the Baltic States into the regional processes as well. USA has received an important role in the processes of development of the Baltic Sea region, to which belong both Northern and the Baltic States; this region has become attractive to USA because of its increasing influence in the region and Europe, and it was a good opportunity for USA to maintain its influence in Europe after the end of the Cold war. The main object of this work is cooperation between Nordic - Baltic countries and USA in the context of development of the regional initiatives. This paper work tries to investigate dynamics of cooperation between Nordic and the Baltic States and USA by assessing the superpower impact and influence on cooperation of two sub-regional states in the Baltic Sea region. When assessing tendencies of cooperation between Northern and the Baltic States and USA, most attention is paid to the format (NB8+1) of regional group NB8 collaborating with USA, JAV, and Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe (E-PINE) program initiated by this state. In order to achieve the goal, the following tasks have been fulfilled: review of the conception, essential definitions and terms of regional development and regionalism/sub-regionalism, discussion of the place of the regional level analysis in political theories of international relations; review and assessment of (sub)regionalism processes among Nordic-Baltic countries; evaluation of USA role in the region by taking into consideration the interests, motives and influence of this superpower on dynamics of regional cooperation within Northern and the Baltic States, and review and evaluation of the tendencies of cooperation of Northern and the Baltic States with USA. In order to achieve the goal and the tasks of this paper work, analytical descriptive, case study, document and comparative analysis methods were used. After the tasks are fulfilled, conclusions can be made that the most perspective self-realisation space of the Baltic States has recently been so-called Northern Arch – a dynamic region of the sovereign Baltic and Northern States maintaining close relations with transatlantic partners, the Great Britain and other EU states. USA declares the significance of those sub-regions as "a growing global partner". The superpower of the world formulates and maintains close relations with Northern and the Baltic States as with a separate region. Such distinction of the sub-region within the USA agenda (Programme of Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe) is already an obvious expression of designing its interests towards the Northern-Baltic direction.

This book provides an innovative analysis of the complex issue of judicial convergence and fragmentation in international human rights law, moving the conversation forward from the assessment of the two phenomena and investigating their triggering factors. With a wide geographical focus that include the most up-to-date case-law from the three main regional systems (the African, European and Inter-American) and the UN Human Rights Committee, the book confirms the predominant judicial convergence across international human rights law. On this basis, the book engages with an interdisciplinary investigation into the legal and non-legal factors that could explain both convergence and fragmentation, ranging from the use of judicial dialogue and the notions of necessity and proportionality to the composition of the courts and the role of NGOs. The aim is to provide the tools to understand the dynamics between human rights adjudicatory bodies and possibly foresee future instances of judicial fragmentation