Search results

Stirk argues that military occupation should be regarded as a political phenomenon - a distinct form of government at the heart of which is the nature of obligation on the part of both the occupier and the occupied. He aims to promote a change in the understanding of occupation, thereby avoiding the perpetuation of recent failures in this area.

Military occupation is a recurrent feature of modern international politics and yet has received little attention from political scientists. This book sets out to remedy this neglect, offering: an account of military occupation as a form of government an assessment of key trends in the development of military occupations over the last two centuries an explanation the conceptual and practical difficulties encountered by occupiers examples drawn from, amongst others, the First and Second World Wars, US occupations in Latin America and Japan, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and the current occupation of Iraq After a survey of the evolving practice and meaning of military occupation the book deals with its contested definitions, challenging restrictive approaches that disguise the true extent of the incidence of military occupation. Subsequent chapters explain the diverse forms that military government within occupation regimes take on and the role of civilian governors and agencies within occupation regimes; the significance of military occupation for our understanding of political obligation; the concept of sovereignty; the nature and meaning of justice; and our evaluation of regime transformation under conditions of military occupation. Key Features deals with military occupation as a form of government draws on a wide range of examples to illustrate themes such as political obligation, sovereignty and justice argues that military occupation covers a wider range than is often assumed, including 'international administration' under the auspices of the UN

Germany, as Europe's most powerful state, has a political significance which underlines the importance of twentieth-century German political thought. Yet this tradition has been poorly represented in academic literature. This book offers: an account of German political thought emphasising its diversity and contested nature an overview of the subject that allows access to relatively unknown figures as well as the 'names' of the tradition (Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Habermas) a demonstration of the political significance of figures better known in other disciplines including law and sociology The book is organised chronologically, with a series of recurrent themes providing analytic unity: (i) the nature of politics (including political vocation and leadership, and definitions of politics), (ii) collective identity, (iii) the rule of law, (iv) the role of the state, (v) the role of political parties and the nature of parliamentary democracy, (vi) state intervention in society and the economy, and (vii) the international order. Pedagogical features include a glossary of German terms and a substantial set of biographical notes identifying the major theorists referred to in the text. Key Features: Challenges established perceptions by presenting German political thought as a contested tradition Presents a rich picture of German political thought by covering a wide range of theorists Its broad chronological range provides the first overview of 20th-century German political thought in one volume

The development of post-war German social sciences is marked by a series of disputes about the nature and implications of positivist methodology. Two of these are selected for consideration here; the 'positivist dispute' in German sociology associated with Adorno and Popper, and the more diffuse assault on positivism in the legal sciences. In both cases, self-avowed positivists were in fact hard to find but the debates were important polemical disputes about the past-notably the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich-and the future of the young Federal Republic. It is suggested below that these disputes should be seen in this context and that the polemical claim in both disputes that certain methodological standpoints mandated specific moral and political commitments is more questionable. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]

Although the Westphalian model takes many forms the association of Westphalian and sovereign equality is a prominent one. This article argues firstly that sovereign equality was not present as a normative principle at Westphalia. It argues further that while arguments for sovereign equality were present in the eighteenth century they did not rely on, or even suggest, a Westphalian provenance. It was, for good reasons, not until the late nineteenth century that the linkages of Westphalia and sovereign equality became commonplace, and even then sovereign equality and its linkage with Westphalia were disputed. It was not until after the Second World War, notably through the influential work of Leo Gross that the linkage of Westphalia and sovereign equality became not only widely accepted, but almost undisputed until quite recently. The article concludes by suggesting that not only did Gross bequeath a dubious historiography but that this historiography is an impediment to contemporary International Relations. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractAlthough the Westphalian model takes many forms the association of Westphalian and sovereign equality is a prominent one. This article argues firstly that sovereign equality was not present as a normative principle at Westphalia. It argues further that while arguments for sovereign equality were present in the eighteenth century they did not rely on, or even suggest, a Westphalian provenance. It was, for good reasons, not until the late nineteenth century that the linkages of Westphalia and sovereign equality became commonplace, and even then sovereign equality and its linkage with Westphalia were disputed. It was not until after the Second World War, notably through the influential work of Leo Gross that the linkage of Westphalia and sovereign equality became not only widely accepted, but almost undisputed until quite recently. The article concludes by suggesting that not only did Gross bequeath a dubious historiography but that this historiography is an impediment to contemporary International Relations.

In The Nomos of the Earth, Carl Schmitt presents an account of the end of the epoch of European public law, and the state that it supported, which has received little attention. Yet Schmitt s account serves to illustrate broader issues involved in the periodization of international relations. This article begins by pointing out the comparative neglect of periodization in international relations before turning to a critical assessment of Schmitts account in The Nomos of the Earth. It concludes by suggesting how Schmitt s flawed account can help us to understand the wider significance of periodization in international relations. Adapted from the source document.