Suchergebnisse

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.

The Statute and Rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice are only remotely analogous to the detailed codes of civil procedure with which lawyers practising before municipal courts are familiar. The instruments governing the procedure of the Permanent Court are sketch maps rather than meticulously detailed charts for the procedural voyage. Nor is the body of tradition of international arbitral procedure sufficiently developed to furnish reliable guides in all circumstances. Of necessity, the practice of the court must develop out of the cases which come before it. The method of growth of its procedural law finds typical illustration in the question of the treatment, and, in particular of the amendment, of the conclusions of the parties.

The value of cross-country comparisons is at the heart of large-scale international surveys. Yet the validity of such comparisons is often challenged, particularly in the case of latent traits whose estimates are based on self-reported answers to a small number of questionnaire items. Many believe self-reports to be unreliable and not comparable, and indeed, formal statistical procedures very often reject the assumption that the questions are understood and answered in the same way in different countries (measurement invariance). A methodological conference on the comparability of questionnaire scales was hosted by the OECD on 8 and 9 November 2018. This meeting report summarises the discussions held at the conference about measurement invariance testing and instrument design. The report first provides a brief introduction to the measurement models and the accompanying invariance analyses typically used in the industry of large-scale international surveys and points to the main limitations of these current standard approaches. It then presents classical and novel ways to deal with imperfect comparability of measurements when scaling and reporting on continuous traits and on categorical latent variables. It finally discusses the extent to which item design can improve the cross-country comparability of the measured constructs (e.g. by adopting innovative item formats such as anchoring vignettes and situational judgement test items). It concludes with some general considerations for survey design and reporting on invariance analyses and survey results.

"GDP is much more than a simple statistic. It has become the overarching benchmark of success and a powerful ordering principle at the heart of the global economy. But the convergence of major economic, social and environmental crises has exposed the flaws of our economic system which values GDP above all else as a measure of prosperity and growth. In this provocative and inspiring new book, political economist Lorenzo Fioramonti sets out his vision of a world after GDP. Focusing on pioneering research on alternative metrics of progress, governance innovation and institutional change, he makes a compelling case for the profound and positive transformations that could be achieved through a post-GDP system of development. From a new role for small business, households and civil society to a radical evolution of democracy and international relations, Fioramonti sets out a combination of top-down reforms and bottom-up pressures whose impact, he argues, would be unprecedented, making it possible to move away from GDP dominance and towards a more equitable, sustainable and happy society"--

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.

"Hugo Chavez won re-election in the 2012 Venezuelan presidential election, despite a closer margin between candidates than in previous elections. The results were puzzling for those who believed that Chavezs government had long ago reached its limits, while Chavezs supporters were struck by the growth of the opposition vote. Thus understanding the Venezuelan election of 2012 has proved to be challenging, with various recent studies focused upon it. Luis F. Angosto Ferrandezs book advances two ideas not previously discussed: the relationship between electoral behavior in Venezuela and contemporary Latin American geopolitics, and the way that relationship is projected through the candidates appeal to narratives that situate Venezuela at the core of a heroic Latin American tradition and of a new regional process of integration. This edited volume first contextualizes and explains the results of the last re-election of Hugo Chavez in terms of its geopolitical conditionings and implications. Contributors tackle Latin American geopolitics by analyzing Venezuelan foreign policy and the countrys role in continental projects of supra-national integration. Contributors also examine electoral strategy and tactics in order to show how the two main candidates built their campaign on emotional grounds as much on rational ones. This will be connected to the investigation of new narratives of national identification in contemporary Venezuela and how they may have practical implications in the design of policies addressing issues such as indigenous rights, community media and national security.Compiling state-of-the-art research on Latin American and Venezuelan politics, this book will appeal to academics and professionals who specialize in Latin American studies, international relations, democracy, and indigenous peoples"--

With the potential inclusion of Japan, and other Indo-Pacific partners, in AUKUS Pillar II projects, the agreement is being pulled in two directions. One remains a closed, trilateral core of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, and the other an emergent multilateral, regionally focused periphery.