Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Hague Yearbook of International Law: Annuaire de la Haye de Droit International -- Copyright -- Contents -- Editorial: Brexit as an Integration of Legal Orders -- 1 International Humanitarian Law in the Jurisprudence of African Human Rights Treaty Bodies -- 2 Against the Law: Turkey's Annexation Efforts in Occupied Cyprus -- 3 Putting the Nail in the Coffin: Isn't it Time to Let the European Consensus Doctrine Put an End to the Use of the Death Penalty in the United States? -- 4 The Application of Bilateral Investment Treaties in Annexed Territories: Whose BITs are Applicable in Crimea after its Annexation? -- 5 The Estrada Doctrine and the English Courts: Determining the Legitimate Government of a State in the Absence of Explicit Recognition of Governments

"Das Spannungsfeld von Handel und Umwelt ist durch starke Einflussbeziehungen zwischen der Welthandelsorganisation einerseits und internationalen Umweltinstitutionen andererseits geprägt. Zunächst wird ein Konzept entwickelt, das die Kausalmechanismen der Einflussbeziehung zwischen internationalen Institutionen und die daraus entstehenden Folgen für das Regieren im internationalen System erkennen lässt. Sodann wird das konfliktreiche Beziehungsgeflecht zwischen der Welthandelsorganisation und internationalen Umweltinstitutionen mit handelsbeschränkenden Maßnahmen analysiert. Beide Seiten haben die Fähigkeit, die Regulierungstätigkeit der jeweils anderen Seite empfindlich zu stören. Schrittweise entwickelt sich jedoch eine systematische Arbeitsteilung zwischen den beteiligten Institutionen, die die bestehende Einflussbeziehung verstetigt und das Konfliktpotenzial gleichzeitig erheblich reduziert." (Autorenreferat)

International Relations has an 'orthodox set' of benchmark dates by which much of its research and teaching is organized: 1500, 1648, 1919, 1945 and 1989. This article argues that International Relations scholars need to question the ways in which these orthodox dates serve as internal and external points of reference, think more critically about how benchmark dates are established, and generate a revised set of benchmark dates that better reflects macro-historical international dynamics. The first part of the article questions the appropriateness of the orthodox set of benchmark dates as ways of framing the discipline's self-understanding. The second and third sections look at what counts as a benchmark date, and why. We systematize benchmark dates drawn from mainstream International Relations theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism/English School and sociological approaches) and then aggregate their criteria. The fourth section of the article uses this exercise to construct a revised set of benchmark dates which can widen the discipline's theoretical and historical scope. We outline a way of ranking benchmark dates and suggest a means of assessing recent candidates for benchmark status. Overall, the article delivers two main benefits: first, an improved heuristic by which to think critically about foundational dates in the discipline; and, second, a revised set of benchmark dates which can help shift International Relations' centre of gravity away from dynamics of war and peace, and towards a broader range of macro-historical dynamics. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]