Search results

This article sheds light on the availability and characteristics of international scholarship programs that are sponsored by national and federal governments worldwide and that are intended to promote student mobility. Utilizing descriptive and cluster analyses, the article produces a framework for organizing the population of these programs. The analyses take into account both the central characteristics of programs and economic and political characteristics of the nations sponsoring the program. The typology produced in this analysis may be used by policy makers and researchers to facilitate cross-national comparisons of program design, implementation, and outcomes. © 2014 AERA.

IN THIS REPORT, THE CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER DISCUSSES BEIJING'S FOREIGN POLICY AND RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES, NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN, AND RUSSIA.

AbstractThe combined effects of socio-economic growth as well as climate change exert increasing pressure on international river basins and require dedicated cooperative efforts to jointly manage international rivers. Cooperative strategies drawn from scientific literature, empirical research and practitioner's handbooks are explored and clustered into six key dimensions of goals, instruments, structures, actors, leadership and resources to provide an assessment tool of actor strategies for both scientists and practitioners. The exploratory framework is applied to Dutch–German cooperation in the delta of the Rhine catchment, testing its conceptual validity and applicability in international river basin management as well as providing policy recommendations for the study area. The assessment framework can serve as an instrument to inventory, map and evaluate the importance of specific actor strategies and to facilitate dialogue and cross-border cooperation between riparian countries. Alternatively, the framework can be put to use, for example by downstream countries, to assess and coordinate their range of strategies on the national, regional and local level in order to engage and influence their counterparts.

Unequal negotiating capacity has been a longstanding concern for developing countries in multilateral environmental negotiations, affecting their fair and active participation in shaping outcomes. Questions over capacity have often been measured and answered through focusing on delegation size. This article argues that this approach is increasingly limited due to changing practices of non-state actor inclusion within state delegations to the UN climate change negotiations. More significantly, delegation size also obscures more subtle capacity-building efforts through specialized non-governmental organizations that have emerged to 'support' developing country delegations. Whilst existing research has analysed the diverse roles that NGOs play in international negotiations, NGOs whose main purpose is to provide negotiating support have been neglected and under-explored. This article addresses this neglect by presenting three brief case studies of such NGOs. It derives from these cases a typology of negotiating support NGOs to illustrate their variance in terms of the 'range' of issues supported and the 'scale' of support provided to developing countries, whilst providing directions for future research. It illustrates the ways in which NGOs also 'perform' diplomacy, and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how developing countries negotiate in climate negotiations.

ABSTRACTImmanuel Kant and Samuel Pufendorf were both exercised by the relationship between politics, morality and lawful authority; a relationship that goes to the heart of the sovereign state's existence and legitimacy. However, while Kant defended the authority of the moral law, believing morality provides higher authoritative norms than the sovereign state, Pufendorf defends the political morality of authority, believing the sovereign state should submit to no higher moral norms. The rivalry between these two positions is reprised in current debate between cosmopolitanism and statism over humanitarian intervention. Arguing against statism, this article defends a Habermasian-style critical international theory which affords a 'cosmopolitanism without imperialism'.

AbstractRecent research has shown that state reporting to human rights monitoring bodies is associated with improvements in rights practices, calling into question earlier claims that self-reporting is inconsequential. Yet little work has been done to explore the theoretical mechanisms that plausibly account for this association. This Article systematically documents—across treaties, countries, and years—four mechanisms through which reporting can contribute to human rights improvements: elite socialization, learning and capacity building, domestic mobilization, and law development. These mechanisms have implications for the future of human rights treaty monitoring.

Globalization leads to increases in all kinds of cross-border flows, including movements of people. In recent years, international migration has grown in volume & is now an important factor of social transformation in all regions of the world. States classify migrants into certain categories, & seek to encourage certain types of mobility while restricting others. However, control measures are often ineffective if they are not based on understanding of the economic, social, & cultural dynamics of migration. The article reviews causes & patterns of migration & discusses migration & development, international cooperation, settlement & ethnic diversity, & migration as a challenge to the nation-state. It is argued that most national governments have taken a short-term & reactive approach to migration. Efforts at international regulation are also relatively underdeveloped. There is a need for long-term cooperative strategies to achieve agreed goals such as ensuring orderly migration & preventing exploitation by agents & recruiters; safeguarding human rights of migrants; making migration an instrument of sustainable development; avoiding conflicts with populations of receiving areas, & maximizing positive aspects of social & cultural change. 1 Table, 35 References. Adapted from the source document.

All 15 former Soviet Republics share a unique federal history with a particular understanding of the right to self-determination. Moreover, seven of them were federalised during the Soviet era, amounting to a major challenge to their territorial integrity after independence. While these states confronted their minorities in different ways, the Russian solution to its inherited national question has been the most comprehensive. This has made Russian understanding on self-determination essentially different from the mainstream of the international community, which in turn explains Russian persistent objections over the Kosovo independence (2008) and partly clarifies the events in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014). This article analyses how the former Soviet Republics coped with the transformation from the ethnofederal state to independence. The focus will be on Russia as the most affected of them and on the persistent Soviet legacy in its interpretations of self-determination and, consequently, its policies towards its post-Soviet neighbours.

The article investigates the relevance ofUN‐sponsored economic and social rights for social citizenship, commonly understood as a set of social rights granted on the national level. DoUN‐sponsored economic and social 'rights' promise social citizenship? The article cautions against quick assumptions that draw simply on the wording of these rights. An in‐depth historical analysis demonstrates that the advocates of economic and social rights propagated several ideas (liberalism, developmental thinking, socialism), mostly unrelated to the idea of social citizenship. Only later, in the 1990s, did the reading of these rights shift significantly, testifying to a new ideational consensus among states. Empirical data extracted from all the States Parties reports filed under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1977–2011) indicate that, at least with respect to poverty, important rights under theICESCRare nowadays understood so as to incorporate elements of social citizenship, obliging states to not neglect individual over collective welfare.