Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Introduction: The Distinctive Nature of the IBSA Countries and Their Stance towards R2P -- Rising Powers and Norm Entrepreneurship: IBSA and the Responsibility to Protect -- It Is More than What It Seems: Understanding India's Perspective on "Responsibility to Protect " -- Brazil's Inconsistent Approach towards International Organizations and R2P: Theory and Practice -- A Brazilian Perspective on Development and R2P: Analysing the Linkages between Domestic and Foreign Policies under Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff -- South Africa's Foreign Policy and R2P -- Still on Board? South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect -- List of Contributors

This book brings together research on police integrity on regions worldwide. The results for each country indicate whether police officers know the official rules, how seriously they view police misconduct, what they think the appropriate and expected discipline for misconduct should be, and how willing they are to report it. Police misconduct refers to everything from corruption and use excessive force, to perjury, falsification of evidence, and failure to react. Police Integrity and police misconduct are topics of great concern worldwide. Police integrity is envisioned as the inclination to

Philip Manow is Professor of Comparative Political Economy, University of Bremen. His research interests include comparative welfare state research, the German political system, European integration and Political Theory. Publications include In the King's Shadow. The Political Anatomy of Democratic Representation (Polity Press, 2010) and Religion, Class Coalitions and Welfare States, Cambridge Studies on Social Theory, Religion and Politics (co-authored with Kees van Kersbergen, CUP, 2009). Bruno Palier is CNRS Research Director at Sciences Po, Centre d'etudes europeennes. He is studying welfare reforms in Europe. He is co-director of LIEPP (Laboratory for interdisciplinary Evaluation of Public Policies)

Die aufsteigenden südlichen Demokratien Indien, Brasilien und Südafrika (IBSA) spielen eine immer bedeutendere Rolle in multilateralen Foren und in Fragen der internationalen Politik. Ihre Position zur Responsibility to Protect sind deshalb für dieses wichtige politische Konzept und dessen weitere Entwicklung von enormer Tragweite. Eine Beschäftigung mit den Einstellungen der drei großen Demokratien des Südens zur Schutzverantwortung und deren Grundlagen ist aber weit über die R2P hinaus lohnenswert, wird doch hierdurch auch ein tiefergehendes Verständnis für die unterschiedlichen Problemlagen, Weltbilder und Wahrnehmungen der Länder und deren außenpolitische Vorstellungen und Handlungen möglich.Dieser Band versammelt kritische Beiträge zu den Positionen der drei IBSA-Staaten, stellt verbreitete Erklärungsmuster in Frage, legt Spannungen zwischen Rhetorik und Praxis offen und korrigiert falsche Vorstellungen in westlichen Diskursen.Mit Beiträgen vonEduardo Gonçalves Gresse, Madhan Mohan Jaganathan, Dan Krause, Fernando Preusser de Mattos, Jan Mutton, Daniel Peters, Folashadé Soulé-Kohndou und Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida

This study assesses participation in the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNRCA) in its first decade (1992-2001) of operation to determine the effects of democracy on international transparency. First, the function of the UNRCA is discussed. Second, transparency is defined and then explained by democracy and factors recognized in two international politics theories: realism, which emphasizes the effects of state capabilities and interests, and liberal institutionalism, which stresses the facilitative role of international institutions. Third, preliminary judgments are offered based on the frequency and nature of participation in the UNRCA, the consistency between export and import reports to the register, and participation in the register by democracies and non-democracies. Fourth, a cross-sectional time-series logit model is specified and tested to determine the relative effects of democracy on participation in the UN register. The study concludes that existing international politics theories go a long way toward accounting for patterns of openness and deception in international politics but not the full extent that security policies owe to domestic structures and processes.

Existing theories of regime transitions suggest that new democracies are more prone to political violence than consolidated democracies. We contend that this risk varies based on the political legacy of the new regime. Specifically, we argue that the prior authoritarian regime influences the risk of conflict in new democracies by shaping the nature of the post-transition political environment. In democracies following military rule, the former autocratic leadership often remains an active political force in the new regime. The continued presence of a materially powerful opposition creates a division in the new regime, increasing the risk of conflict by: (i) complicating efforts to consolidate democratic rule and (ii) signaling potential political opportunity to would-be rebels. In line with our argument, we find that only those new democracies emerging from military rule are more likely to experience civil conflict compared with consolidated democracies. These findings have implications for democracy promotion and conflict prevention efforts, suggesting that democratization is not always associated with an increased short-term risk of conflict as is currently assumed.

Examines the rise of hybrid wars that combine elements of conventional & guerilla warfare & the models required for Western democracies to apply to the kind of urban fighting becoming so common in the 21st century. The 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war & Israel's 2008 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza are described, highlighting problems with the former & improvements in the latter. In Gaza, military operations proceeded better, but Israel had trouble with the political & information dimensions; further, in both campaigns, much criticism leveled against Israel centered on the notion of proportionality. It is argued that these two conflicts illustrate the need to change the laws of war. D. Edelman

AbstractThis paper reviews the existing comparative literature with regard to differences and similarities of policy diffusion between democratic and authoritarian regimes. There has been an extensive discussion of causes and effects of policy diffusion for democracies, but the literature on autocracies lacks similar focus and scope. Similarly, research on the patterns and causes of policies' diffusion across regime types is virtually non‐existent. After some theoretical considerations about regime effects on diffusion in the first part of this paper, we analyse data on foreign trade regulations and nuclear power plants and compare results across regime types. Based on cross‐time cross‐section regression models, we can show that, depending on the specific policy field, regime type is of less importance for diffusion processes than theoretically expected. This highlights a need for further detailed research on the general role of regime type regarding policy diffusion.