Suchergebnisse

This article examines to what extent States' right to self-defence should be applied in the outer space. The concept of self-defence within international regulations remains debatable. Brought by the existing reality in international system, this article analyses and suggests in further details that the act of States' right for self-defence should be limited to the act of militarization and not weaponization in the outer space. The argument in this article is carried by the perspective of realism that argues the structure of international system as an anarchy in which states are naturally competing one and another for the purpose of power due to the effect of living within power stratification. Consequently, if states are allowed to exercise their right to self-defence without any limitation, the context of selfdefence becomes broader and will constitute a threat towards international peace and security. Therefore, the right of states to self-defence should be limited within the context of outer space to support only military purpose without any form space-to-space, space-to-earth, or earth-to-space weapons.

Developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship in recent years have marked a change in nature of the Australia-Japan relationship. The two countries have never been so involved in matters of security, partly due to memories of Japan's actions in World War II (WWII) and the emphasis on trade relations during the Cold War. It was not until the end of the Cold War did the strategic relationship start to make progress outside intelligence cooperation. The major factor explaining for the post-Cold War development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship was the move by Japan to make an 'international contribution' that reflected its status as the second largest economy. The actives that could be conducted by the Japanese Self-Defense Force (JSDF) had been and continue to be constrained due to the incorporation of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution. Established during the American-led occupation of Japan following the end of WWII, the purpose of Article 9 was to take away Japan's ability to wage war. This had the effect of greatly restricting Japan's ability to be involved in any operation not directly related to the defence of Japan, meaning that JSDF involvement in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO) was not possible. However, following the first Gulf War, the establishment on the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Law (UNPKO Law) in 1992, allowed for the deployment of the JSDF to UNPKO and disaster relief operations. It was this move by Japan that resulted in an increase in the number of times the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the JSDF operated together in the same theatre. ADF-JSDF cooperation in UNPKO such as in Cambodia and East Timor, as well as in coalitions such as the one in Iraq is widely recognised as being significant for development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship. Increased instances of ADF-JSDF cooperation on the ground has been reflected in a greater number of Australia-Japan security agreements that have been established in an attempt to formalise the strategic relationship. The 2007 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation signed by the Howard and Abe governments was important as it established a framework for closer security cooperation and marked the first time Japan had entered into a security agreement with any country other than the United States (US). By formalising the Australia-Japan strategic relationship through the 2007 Joint Declaration, a link between Australia and Japan was made within the context of their respective alliances with the US. This link resulted in the view that a trilateral strategic relationship between Australia, Japan and the US was in development, and could result in an alliance. Additionally, moves by Japan in particular, to involve democratic value-sharing countries in a strategic relationship that included India had the consequence of making the purpose of the 2007 Joint Declaration a means to contain China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region. It was not until the Rudd Government came into power in late 2007 did the Australia-Japan strategic relationship become refined. The 2008 Memorandum on Defence Cooperation set the agenda for future ADF-JSDF collaboration in international peace cooperation activities. According to the Memorandum, the ADF-JSDF collaboration was to progress in four areas: peacekeeping operations; disaster relief; combating international terrorism; and in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). This agenda reflected past ADF-JSDF collaboration and demonstrated an understanding that such collaboration was most meaningful and practical in operations of low intensity. Subsequent developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship have supported this move. The 2010 Australia-Japan Acquisition and Cross- Servicing Agreement (ACSA), which allows for the exchange of goods and services during joint training exercises, is one such development. In addition to military exchanges and joint training exercises, the ACSA is a means to enhance the interoperability between the ADF and JSDF, allowing for closer cooperation in operations. There is much potential in the ACSA to iron out some of the gaps in the capabilities between the two forces, in part due to the constraints placed on the JSDF by Article 9. Although the ACSA has not been applied as of yet, possibilities lie in the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT). It is in the direction of practical collaboration in international peace cooperation activities that the ADF-JSDF will continue to develop.

The most important single consequence of Nicaragua v. United States of America may well turn out to be its impact on the vitality of the law of the United Nations Charter governing force and self-defense. Will the case make it more likely, or less, that that law will become an increasingly effective working part of the international system?

ABSTRACT
This essay traces the impact of the wider ideological landscape regarding "identity politics," interpretive practice, and literature of the 1970s on Judith Fetterley's The Resisting Reader. Specifically, it tracks the traces of Black and women of color feminist organizing legible in Fetterley's text, as well as those left by social movements operating at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971. Though these traces go unattributed, this article argues that their presence offers an opportunity to read, as Fetterley might put it, a closed system from "without." The author's resistant reading of Fetterley's text suggests how her "radical feminism" calls for a distinct attention to the materialist operations of academic and literary institutions in an investigation of their racialized, patriarchal power.