Suchergebnisse

As the financial crisis draws U.S. business overseas and developing countries rise in influence, the regulation of international business has never figured so prominendy in federal law. But the dominant paradigm through which academics and policymakers continue to view that law-the so-called Washington Consensus-proves deeply misleading. A more accurate account of the components, origins, and aims of U.S. international business law reveals two striking ironies. First, in discrete but critical ways, the United States no longer represents the comparatively laissez-faire approach to federal business regulation. Rather, owing to its origins in the Progressive Era, U.S. federal law directs corporations toward noneconomic social goals, particularly combating corruption (for example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and promoting human rights (for example, the Alien Tort Statute or economic sanctions). By contrast, the alternative legal regime to which the United States is frequendy comparedChina- largely allows companies to pursue profits internationally without regard to their impact on corruption and human rights. Though it remains true that the U.S. regime and its principal alternative are distinguished by the extent to which the state restricts business conduct to achieve social goals, the roles are now reversed. Second, the rise of an alternative model now substantially thwarts the goals of U.S. progressive regulation. Empirical research in political science and economics demonstrates that because the U.S. regime increases the costs of doing business in emerging markets, U.S. companies tend to invest less. The resulting void in capital is filled by companies from China and other countries that similarly lack prohibitions on bribery and human rights violations. Ironically, enforcement ofU.S. progressivism creates the very conditions in which corruption and human rights violations occur.

While divisive inter- & intraparadigm debates over theories & methodology abound in the discourse of international relations, issues surrounding geographically based divides between developed & developing world international relations scholars have received considerably less attention. Trends of globalization & internationalization in the past decade have strengthened the argument that such divides must be bridged. This article first investigates whether there have been changes in the level of dialogue between core & periphery IR scholars throughout the 1990s by looking at publishing practices in twenty leading IR journals worldwide over seven years. It suggests explanations for the continuing lack of communication based on interviews with IR scholars from the developing world. 4 Figures, 22 References. Adapted from the source document.

This Article examines the development of the International Criminal Court, outlines the positions of and disagreements between Britain and the United States concerning the ICC, and analyzes the specific objections to the ICC raised by the United States. In this discussion, the Article argues that the contrasting positions of Britain and the United States toward the ICC can be understood in terms of each nation's differently configured perception of its own sovereign power. For various reasons, Britain's sovereignty is tested most acutely by its relationship with the European Union, while the United States feels its sovereignty encroached primarily by its relationship with the United Nations. Britain and the United States share a commitment to constitutionalism and this commitment has grounded Anglo-American support for international war crimes tribunals in the past. In the end, the ICC raises the question whether constitutionalism is a domestic or a universal conception.

2008/2009 ; The study of international relations derives from the history of diplomacy and international law. Today the subject is as interdisciplinary as it deals with time elements( history)‐events, space dimensions ( geography)‐ place, power (political sciences)‐state/actor, economic state( economic sciences)‐market, social behavior( sociology)‐social system, culture(anthropology)‐cultural system, personality of actors( psychology)‐individuality.1 One of the challenges of the 21st century will be maintaining the security of liberal democratic states. Freedom from physical attack or coercion, from internal subversion and from erosion of the political, economic and social values essential to people's way of life will be under threat. Problems will arise from great power ambitions, regional disputes, the collapse of states and ecological disasters. But widely accessible new technologies, the spread of weapons of mass effect, and a high degree of global mobility have increased the vulnerabilities of democratic states to adversaries with trans‐national ideologies willing to use violence to achieve their aims. The paper seeks to bring its contribution to enhancing the understanding states managerial styles, their vision, resources, commitments interests, agreements, their international relation, the power they have, they lack, the interdependence between them, world system of analysis and its evolution, the impact of the financial crisis, which countries are more successful than others in raising income levels and opportunities for their respective populations. And in this global perspective there were set two important actors: European Union and United States of America, that have been investigated from their political, social, economical point of view, relating them to global competitiveness, as a preset challenge of the international system. ; XXII Ciclo