Search results

Abstract
Since the Second World War, displacement has become increasingly protracted and return is in decline. Despite calls for greater international responsibility sharing, many displaced people are subject to a legal limbo, lacking recognition and reparation in international law. This article seeks to establish the legal contours of protracted displacement as an internationally wrongful act that can engage the responsibility of States of origin and result in redress for those displaced. The article argues that there is evidence of a customary international law right of return, which requires States to facilitate voluntary repatriation and provide restitution. Facilitation includes refraining from preventing or obstructing return, suppressing acts of retribution or discrimination, and addressing root causes of displacement. Restitution includes property restitution, compensation for material and moral damages as well as reintegration and reconciliation measures, and offering effective models for return. The article concludes that the progressive development and codification of the law on forced displacement should address temporality, the qualities of return, and the alleviation of extant crises.

The article deals with the issue regarding ensuring of effective protection in criminal proceedings. Following analysis of international acts and cases of the European Court of Human Rights international standards which are designated for the exercise of the right to protection in criminal proceeding and ensuring of its efficiency have been highlighted. It has been proposed to divide these standards in the following groups: i) standards which are aimed at ensuring efficiency of the legal defense carried out by the convicted person independently; ii) standards which contribute to effective legal defense carried out by defense attorney; iii) standards which were developed for effective legal defense carried out by the party of defense (by a convicted person and a defense attorney); iv) standards which have requirements to the state or its bodies and provides its bodies with obligations to ensure an effective legal defense. In this group of standards, the author highlights some elements compliance with which contribute to effective legal defense in criminal proceedings. Following a systematical analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights it has been concluded that majority of international standards have been implemented in national criminal procedure legislation. At the same time there is a space for improvement because there are standards which were not enshrined in Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine such as: presentation of procedural documents to the convicted person in his language or other language he/she speaks if he/she signed these documents; providing with an opportunity to choose the defense attorney including the cases of his/her attraction upon appointment; binding the state to ensure the real defense of the suspect, convicted person because the appointment of the defense attorney does not ensure effective legal aid etc.

Although much has been written on the attitude of new states toward international law in general, little concern has been given in contemporary literature to the attitude of these states toward the judicial machinery of international law and its principal organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Writings on the new states' attitude toward international law are also, on the whole, theoretical and general in character to the extent that they could be described as analyses of what this attitude could or should be rather than what it is in fact. Typical of these writings is Brierly's statement that some of the new nations "at least are inclined to look on international law as an alien system which the Western nations, whose moral or intellectual leadership they no longer recognize, are trying to impose upon them"—an outlook which suggests at best an indifferent attitude toward the Court whose primary function is to apply this (alien) system of law. As a result, it has been said that the new states' attitude toward the Court is an indirect manifestation of their rebelliousness against the present system of international law or, at least, an example of their consciousness of the sovereignty they have recently acquired.

The complex economic problems of the 21st century require a pluralist, real-world oriented and innovative discipline of economics that is capable of addressing and teaching these issues to students. This volume is a state-of-the-art compilation of diverse, innovative and international perspectives on the rationales for and pathways towards pluralist economics teaching. It fosters constructive controversy aiming to incite authors and commentators to engage in fruitful debates. This volume addresses a number of key questions: Why is it important for a social science to engage in pluralistic teaching? What issues does pluralist teaching face in different national contexts? Which traditions and practices in economic teaching make pluralist teaching difficult? What makes economics as a canonical textbook science particular and how could the rigid textbook system be innovated in a meaningful way? What can we learn from school education and other social science disciplines? Through examining these issues the editors have created a pluralist but cohesive book on teaching economics in the contemporary classroom drawing from ideas and examples from around the world.Advancing Pluralism in Teaching Economics offers a valuable insight into the methodology and application of pluralist economics teaching. It will be a great resource for those teaching economics at various levels, as well as researchers.

"The analysis of conflict and human displacement has changed, particularly concerning the links between security and migration. In seeking to address the nexus between security concerns and migratory flows, Refugees and Forced Displacement argues for a reappraisal of the legal, political, normative, institutional and conceptual frameworks through which the international community addresses refugees and displacement."--Jacket

'The study of international relations is not an innocent profession.'1 It is not like the classics, or mathematics, an abstract logical training for the youthful mind. The justification for the place it has gained in the university curriculum rests upon utility, not on aesthetics. The growth of the social sciences in Western universities in the past century, and their remarkable expansion over the past thirty years, has been based upon their perceived contribution to better government, in the broadest sense. 'The forever explosive relationship between social science and public policy' has been embedded in the discipline of International Relations from the outset.2

International relations has often been treated as a separate discipline distinct from the other major fields in political science, namely American and comparative politics. A main reason for this distinction has been the claim that politics in the international system is radically different from politics domestically. The degree of divergence between international relations (IR) and the rest of political science has waxed and waned over the years; however, in the past decade it seems to have lessened. This process has occurred mainly in the "rationalist research paradigm," and there it has both substantive and methodological components. Scholars in this paradigm have increasingly appreciated that politics in the international realm is not so different from that internal to states, and vice versa. This rationalist institutionalist research agenda thus challenges two of the main assumptions in IR theory. Moreover, scholars across the three fields now tend to employ the same methods. The last decade has seen increasing cross-fertilization of the fields around the importance of institutional analysis. Such analysis implies a particular concern with the mechanisms of collective choice in situations of strategic interaction. Some of the new tools in American and comparative politics allow the complex, strategic interactions among domestic and international agents to be understood in a more systematic and cumulative way.