Parts 1 and 3 appeared first in 1915 as spplements to the July 10 and 17 issues of the New statesman, with collective title Suggestions for the prevention of war. ; "This volume is the outcome of a Committee of the Fabian Research Department . To Mr. L. S. Woolf was committed the task of preparing two reports (which appear as Parts I and II of this volume); and upon this investigation the Committee drafted what now stands as Part III." ; Includes bibliographical references and an index. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Preface --Opening Address --Welcoming Address --Congratulatory Address --Introductory Remarks --Is There a Growing International Arbitration Culture? --Is There an Expanding Culture that Favours Combining Arbitration, Conciliation or Other Dispute Resolution Procedures? --To What Extent Do Arbitrators in International Cases Disregard the Bag and Baggage of National Systems? --When and Where Do National Courts Reflect an International Culture, When Deciding Issues Relating to International Arbitration ? --List of Oral Interventions.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
1. Points of departure -- 2. International concerns and the international community of states -- 3. The expanded international political and juridical arena -- 4. International relations in a global context -- 5. International law in the global environment -- 6. Taking stock : global governance in a post-Westphalian order.
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
"This book focuses on collaborative work within the disciplines of international law and international relations, to note sample efforts to collaborate, and to assess the cultivation of an interdisciplinary outlook"--
Historians have all but dispensed with a conventional chronology that marks the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) as the origin of a modern state-centric territorial sovereignty. Instead, they are accumulating evidence that, since at least the early nineteenth century, sovereignty stretches back to the imperial practice of intervention into polities elsewhere on humanitarian grounds. Imperial sovereignty was less uniform than imperial officials and cartographers asserted; instead, as Lauren Benton has argued, it was (and is) usually "more myth than reality, more a story that polities [told] about their own power than a definite quality that they possess[ed]". Then there is the increasing number of historical examples of nonnormative, quasi-invisible forms of extra-territoriality that shaped the global imperial political architecture of the late nineteenth century: from the remaining principalities of the Holy Roman empire, and the conceptually distinctive practices of the Habsburgs as they separated cultural sovereignty from political sovereignty within their imperial territory, to the European claims to commercial and municipal authority in the treaty ports that dotted China's seaboard and river system, carving out the spoils of war.
