Suchergebnisse

Aufgrund der Fragen, ob man irrtümlicherweise von einer Universalität menschlicher Wertvorstellungen bei der Schwerpunktsetzung in der internationalen Menschenrechtserziehung ausgeht, was Indoktrination in der Menschenrechtserziehung bedeutet, und welcher Zusammenhang zwischen Menschenrechtserziehung und der offiziellen, pragmatischen und kulturellen Einflußebene der Schule sowie zwischen der Menschenrechtserziehung und der informellen Gruppe besteht, stellt die Autorin internationale Menschenrechte und Werteerziehung als normatives Problem dar. Der teilweisen Beantwortung der Fragen liegt eine internationale Befragung von Eltern, Schülern und Lehrern über die Behandlung politischer Themen, die 1971 durchgeführt wurde, sowie eine 1977 durchgeführte Studie über die Bedeutung der Peergruppenkulturen für Heranwachsende zugrunde. (HD)

Abstract
In recent years, various crises such as the financial crisis, Brexit, and the Covid-19 pandemic have shed light on citizens' (dis)satisfaction with international organisations (IOs). Yet, despite their crucial importance for the support of IOs, individual citizens' connection to these organisations remains understudied. This article contributes to the literature on emotion research in International Relations (IR) by exploring the everyday emotions of ordinary individuals about IOs and their repercussions on world politics, moving beyond the state or community level to examine how citizens actually experience international politics. It does so by (i) theorising individuals' emotional attachments to IOs and demonstrating how they shape perceptions and preferences that impact the future of organisations, and (ii) advocating for the use of focus groups as a research method to study emotions in IR. Contributing to the 'everyday turn' in emotion research in IR, it uses the European Union as a case study and analyses 21 focus groups with individuals from four different countries (Belgium, France, Italy, and Portugal). The article's insights provide a deeper understanding of the micro-political foundation that enables and legitimises government action, and against whose background international relations are conducted.

International economic law (IEL) continues to evolve through dialectic processes of unilateral, bilateral, regional and worldwide regulation aimed at protecting cosmopolitan rights and transnational rule of law in mutually beneficial economic cooperation among citizens in a globalizing economy (section 1). The more transnational protection of cosmopolitan rights (e.g., human rights, trading, investor and social rights) depends on multilevel cooperation among national and international courts, the stronger becomes the need for justifying "multilevel judicial governance" by conceptions of "cosmopolitan" and "constitutional justice" rather than only by "Westphalian justice" and "commutative justice", as reciprocally agreed in treaties among States (section 2). "Fragmentation" of "IEL among States" through multilevel economic regulation and adjudication (e.g., inside free trade areas and economic communities) is a necessary strategy for reforming international law for the benefit of citizens. In order to remain legitimate and reconcile the rational self-interests of citizens with their reasonable common interests, investment arbitration must remain embedded into multilevel human rights law and respect for legitimate "constitutional pluralism" protecting cosmopolitan rights, transnational "participatory" and "deliberative democracy" and rule of law through "consistent interpretations" and "judicial comity" among national and international courts of justice (section 3).

The succession of mostly nonviolent revolutions that replaced Eastern European communist governments in 1989 and the lack of any action by the Soviet Union to stop these changes transformed the international political system. Since these changes were not driven by changes in relative capabilities, they did not follow the postulates of neorealist theory. Rather, the revolutions of 1989 changed the rules governing superpower conflict and, thereby, the norms underpinning the international system. This constructivist perspective systematically links domestic and international structures with political practice and shows that international systems consist of ensembles of social institutions. These institutions change in response not only to shifting distributions of capabilities but also to redefinition of actors' identities as well as changes in state-society relations. Transformations of the international system occur when political practices change and therefore fail to reproduce the familiar international "structures."

The Codification of International Law.
Because of the essentially voluntary nature of international law, codification is not without its risks with respect to the integrality of international law. More often than not States will only accept that they are bound by norms to which they have consented. Codification must, therefore, have as its objective the re-enforcement of rules of law which pre-exist in a customary form. For this reason, whatever the instance of codification, the preparatory work done towards codification determines the success of the venture ; likewise, in addition to their scientific analysis of questions posed, specialists must necessarily engage in a more practical and political analysis, with a view to evaluating the chances of the project being accepted by States.

"Die friedliche Beilegung von zwischenstaatlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten durch den Internationalen Gerichtshof (IGH) gehört heute zur Normalität, auch wenn die Staatengemeinschaft die mit dem IGH gegebene Möglichkeit noch nicht optimal nutzt. Die Durchführung der Urteile des Gerichtshofs bereitet in der Regel keine Schwierigkeiten. Zwar stagniert die Zahl der Staaten, die die Zuständigkeit des IGH generell anerkannt haben, doch enthalten immer mehr Verträge Klauseln, die für den Fall von Streitigkeiten die Zuständigkeit des Gerichtshofs begründen. Auch ist geradezu eine Proliferation internationaler Gerichte außerhalb des IGH zu beobachten, deren Zuständigkeiten aber vielfach Streitigkeiten betreffen, die nicht vor den IGH kommen könnten. Die Zuerkennung der Parteifähigkeit von Internationalen Organisationen vor dem Gerichtshof hält der Autor nicht für erforderlich. Für wünschenswert hält er aber eine Beschleunigung der Verfahren vor dem IGH." (Autorenreferat)