Search results

There are two functions of the state liability principle. The first is to secure individual rights (including economic rights) from a wrongful act conducted by a government, and the second is to compensate for damage caused by the infringement of individual right. Economic right is inherently allowing an individual to pursue economic interest both domestically or globally. In order to accommodate this right, a government is obliged to provide trade rules and mechanisms for every individual to conduct their global economic activities by participating in the WTO. The objective of the WTO significantly corresponds to the individual's right in order to obtain trade benefits. Hence, when a government infringes trade rules and mechanisms underlined in WTO Law, it will directly restrict individuals from gaining trade benefits under the WTO or, moreover, it will restrain individuals from enjoying their inviolable economic rights. When the right is violated, and the damage occurs, it thus leads to the obligation for the government to compensate the damage according to the state liability principle. This article discusses the nexus between the state liability principle and WTO Law, in order to encourage national courts to exercise the function of state liability by referring to the infringement of economic rights caused by the violation of WTO Law.

Dirk Schinkel ; Inhaltsverzeichnis ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2007.23782

United States and the Soviet Union is a country on the part of allies who emerged as the winner during World War II. However, after reaching the Allied victory in the situation soon changed, man has become an opponent. United States and the Soviet Union are competing to expand the influence and power. To compete the United States strive continuously strengthen itself both in the economic and military by establishing a defense pact and aid agencies in the field of economy. During the Cold War the two are not fighting directly in one of the countries of the former Soviet Union and the United States. However, if understood, teradinya the Korean War and the Vietnam War is a result of tensions between the two countries and is a direct warfare conducted by the United States and the Soviet Union. Cold War ended in conflict with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the winner of the country. ; United States and the Soviet Union is a country on the part of allies who emerged as the winner during World War II. However, after reaching the Allied victory in the situation soon changed, man has become an opponent. United States and the Soviet Union are competing to expand the influence and power. To compete the United States strive continuously strengthen itself both in the economic and military by establishing a defense pact and aid agencies in the field of economy. During the Cold War the two are not fighting directly in one of the countries of the former Soviet Union and the United States. However, if understood, teradinya the Korean War and the Vietnam War is a result of tensions between the two countries and is a direct warfare conducted by the United States and the Soviet Union. Cold War ended in conflict with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the winner of the country.

Problems arising from the relationship between Islam (dîn) and politics (siyâsah) became the polemics among Muslim political thinkers that have not been completely solved up until now. Hence, it is difficult to identify which countriy such as Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, and Indonesia, that deserves to be a representation of an Islamic state. The consequence of different understandings about the relationship between Islam and politics – in the case in Indonesia- is the emergence of Indonesian Islamic State (NII). This movement attracted a number of responses from Indonesian Muslim intellectuals. Using a sociohistorical-politics approach in discussing these responses as they do not agree about the establishment of the NII, will lead to an understanding of coercion and oppression of understanding group that is different from other groups. ; Problems arising from the relationship between Islam (dîn) and politics (siyâsah) became the polemics among Muslim political thinkers that have not been completely solved up until now. Hence, it is difficult to identify which countriy such as Turkey, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, and Indonesia, that deserves to be a representation of an Islamic state. The consequence of different understandings about the relationship between Islam and politics – in the case in Indonesia- is the emergence of Indonesian Islamic State (NII). This movement attracted a number of responses from Indonesian Muslim intellectuals. Using a sociohistorical-politics approach in discussing these responses as they do not agree about the establishment of the NII, will lead to an understanding of coercion and oppression of understanding group that is different from other groups.

The existing literature on Indonesia's foreign policy has excluded the state from the category of an agent which shapes the country's external affairs. This trend certainly ignores the notion that foreign policy is a unique state activity taking place in the interface between domestic and international politics. To fill the gap, this article explores the idea about the family state and looks at its influence on the conduct of Indonesia's international relations. The argument is that the family state pursues order in international society in which sovereignty can be maintained. Indonesia plays the role of an order-maker in Southeast Asia through the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The order-oriented actions are displayed by Jakarta's diplomacy to resolve border disputes with neighbouring countries in the region