Suchergebnisse

Pauline Ewan discussed, in a recent issue of Politics, how the human security debate is stymied by conceptual and definitional weaknesses, and how it is politicised in conventional security studies. In response, this article takes a different approach and develops from the critical security literature a working conceptualisation and definition of broad human in security. It proposes as one example of objectively identifiable and measurable dimension of human insecurity the largely preventable high rates of under five mortality (U5M) and demonstrates its origins in the socially constructed international system. In this way, it responds to Ewan's remarks concerning the need to debate subjectivity and historical (and contemporary) political determinism in order to circumvent the unending 'circuitous debates' that stymie the development of human security.

Many states partially relinquish sovereignty in return for physical protection from a more powerful state. Mainstream theory on international hierarchies holds that such decisions are based on rational assessments of the relative qualities of the political order being offered. Such assessments, however, are bound to be contingent, and as such a reflection of the power to shape understandings of reality. Through a study of the remarkably persistent US-led security hierarchy in East Asia, this article puts forward the concept of the 'epistemic community' as a general explanation of how such understandings are shaped and, hence, why states accept subordinate positions in international hierarchies. The article conceptualises a transnational and multidisciplinary network of experts on international security – 'The Asia-Pacific Epistemic Community' – and demonstrates how it operates to convince East Asian policymakers that the current US-led social order is the best choice for maintaining regional 'stability'.

Abstract
The Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law seek to address an issue hitherto unresolved in the law of international responsibility: if two or more states or organizations together cause a single harm to a victim, what are the consequences for suit and reparation? Commentators generally counsel against the use of domestic concepts such as 'solidary liability' or 'joint and several liability' in international law. This comment highlights the role of domestic analogies in the formulation of the Guiding Principles, focusing on two elements: the application of liability in solidum as the key consequence of multiple responsibility (Principle 10), and 'concerted action' (Principle 7) as a condition for multiple responsibility. Both of these concepts can be found in many domestic legal systems, but the Principles place differential weight on domestic analogies in the elaboration of Principles 10 and 7: Principle 10 draws useful analogies with the rationale behind liability in solidum in domestic law, while Principle 7 on concerted action does not rely on related domestic concepts. That is likely for good reason. However, responsibility based on concerted action is a novel basis for responsibility in international law, and therefore its justification is all the more important. The justification provided for Principle 7 is not fully convincing, and its scope of application is uncertain. I query whether the exploration of cognate concepts in domestic legal systems may have helped to justify the rationale for, or the scope of, responsibility based on concerted action.

"This book conducts a gendered critique of the 'principle of distinction' in international humanitarian law (IHL), with a focus on recent conflicts in Africa. The 'principle of distinction' is core to IHL, and regulates who can and cannot be targeted in armed conflict. It states that civilians may not be targeted in attack, while combatants and those civilians directly participating in hostilities can be. The law defines what it means to be a combatant and a civilian, and sets out what behaviour constitutes direct participation. Close examination of the origins of the principle reveals that IHL was based on a gendered view of conflict, which envisages men as fighters and women as victims of war. Problematically, this view often does not accord with the reality in 'new wars' today in which women are playing increasingly active roles, often forming the backbone of fighting groups, and performing functions on which armed groups are highly reliant. Using women's participation in 'new wars' in Africa as a study, this volume critically examines the principle through a gendered lens, questioning the extent to which the principle serves to protect women in modern conflicts and how it fails them. By doing so, it questions whether the principle of distinction is suitable to effectively regulate the conduct of hostilities in new wars. This book will be of much interest to students of international law, gender studies, African politics, war and conflict studies, and international relations"--

P. 1: South Africa tightens the noose. - 9 S. - (UFSI Reports; 1984/No. 24) ; (Africa; JGL-3-'84); P. 2: The impact of the Nkomati Accord. - 6 S. - (UFSI Reports; 1984/No. 25) ; (Africa; JGL-4-'84)