Suchergebnisse

This essay seeks to extend the already controversial debate about humanitarian intervention by exploring the morality, legality, and legitimacy of ecological intervention and its corollary, ecological defense. If the legacy of the Holocaust was acceptance of a new category of "crimes against humanity" and an emerging norm of humanitarian intervention, then should the willful or reckless perpetration of mass extinctions and massive ecosystem destruction be regarded as "crimes against nature" or "ecocide" such as to ground a new norm of ecological intervention or ecological defense? The essay shows that the minimalist argument for ecological intervention—multilateral intervention in the case of environmental emergencies with major transboundary spillover effects—is the strongest and may be defended as ecological self-defense. "Eco-humanitarian intervention" to prevent ecocide involving serious human rights violations has the same precarious status as humanitarian intervention, however, and is unlikely to garner the support of developing countries. The most challenging case of all—the military rescue of nonhuman species—finds moral support in environmental philosophy but conflicts with deeply entrenched international legal and political norms concerning state territorial rights.

This essay seeks to extend the already controversial debate about humanitarian intervention by exploring the morality, legality, and legitimacy of ecological intervention and its corollary, ecological defense. If the legacy of the Holocaust was acceptance of a new category of "crimes against humanity" and an emerging norm of humanitarian intervention, then should the willful or reckless perpetration of mass extinctions and massive ecosystem destruction be regarded as "crimes against nature" or "ecocide" such as to ground a new norm of ecological intervention or ecological defense? The essay shows that the minimalist argument for ecological intervention-multilateral intervention to deal with environmental emergencies with major transboundary spillover effects-is the strongest and may be defended as ecological self-defense. However, "eco-humanitarian intervention" to prevent ecocide involving serious human rights violations has the same precarious status as humanitarian intervention and is unlikely to garner the support of developing countries. The most challenging case of all-the military rescue of nonhuman species-find moral support in environmental philosophy but conflicts with deeply entrenched international legal and political norms concerning state territorial rights. Adapted from the source document.

Social and economic policy decisions are increasingly being taken in a global public domain in which national/transnational boundaries are blurred, and the `public' domain includes non-state actors. We argue that a new rights advocacy, advancing economic and social human rights as well as civil and political, is essential to understanding rule-making in the global public domain. New rights advocacy involves traditional human rights and development NGOs, social movement organizations and new `hybrid' organizations, in using human rights standards and methods to influence states, international organizations, and corporations. The new patterns of NGO engagement are studied through case studies of advocacy on HIV/AIDS and on the right to water. New rights advocacy constitutes a direct challenge to development orthodoxy, suggests a new interpretation of the social movements protesting globalization, and manifests a complex relationship between NGOs and poor country governments, in which NGOs often advocate on behalf of these governments' sovereign rights to set economic and social policy.

A contribution to the roundtable discussion on the preemptive use of force focuses on whether the US decision to wage war against the Iraqi regime is a just one rather than on the ethical implications of preemption & prevention. It is argued that Saddam Hussein's regime has given the US & its allies ample justifications for war that are based on justice, not prevention. Taken together, Saddam Hussein's willingness to attack his own civilians, his abuse of human rights, & his consistent violation of UN resolutions & the terms of the 1991 cease-fire treaty provide sufficient reasons to remove his regime as a matter of justice. The untrustworthy nature of Saddam Hussein's regime makes any peaceful road to Iraqi disarmament highly doubtful. Unlike the situation with North Korea, where there is hope of diplomatic options, the crisis in Iraq has reached its end with 'no reasonable chance of accommodation.' It is maintained that an invasion of Iraq is less likely to create a new international norm than allowing the status quo to continue. J. Lindroth

One of the most remarkable features of contemporary international relations is the new prestige accorded universal standards of human rights. However, NATO's attempt to redeem the promise of human rights by way of military intervention during the recent Kosovo crisis may have established a disturbing precedent for humanitarianism. The Alliance exploited the capabilities of precision weaponry and digital information systems to wage war with air power alone, thus avoiding entirely the deployment of ground troops and the domestic political exposure such a deployment inevitably involves. The best available evidence is that this approach had little immediate effect on the atrocities carried out by Serbian troops in Kosovo and that NATO's overriding concern with casualty-avoidance in war undermined both the effectiveness and the moral legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. Even more disturbing is the question whether NATO's action implies that states endowed with the advanced military assets that were brought to bear against Serbia will adopt a casual policy on the conduct of limited war, a policy at odds with the lessons of the twentieth century.

What are the consequences of internationalization for the democratic legitimacy of governance? The argument developed in this article claims that de-democratization will take place as long as intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms offer national governments the opportunity to reassert state autonomy vis-a-vis increasingly assertive domestic and transnational societal pressures. Applied to the context of an emerging world society, the concept of raison d'état is employed in order to classify the concurrence of mutual self-commitment and dedemocratization as a predictable result of strategic interaction among national governments. The article argues that in order to overcome this serious, yet surmountable, obstacle to democratic governance beyond the state, the future architecture of global public policy will have to transcend the traditional frame of intergovernmentalism. Reflecting upon institutional designs to overcome the shortcomings of international governance, the author postulates that solutions cannot be based on the territorial-state majority-democracy model. Instead, a de-governmentalized polity for governance beyond the state is suggested which would be composed of functionally differentiated political arenas with different roles, participants and forms of representation.

This article explores `European foreign policy' as an important new empirical domain of foreign policy and also as a challenging vehicle for evaluating the current status of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). It begins by identifying the weaknesses of the dominant institutionalist mode of analysis of foreign policy activity in Europe which include a restrictive definition of `foreign policy' in this context. A case is then made for arguing that critics of FPA have underestimated the significance of developments in this sub-field of International Relations over the last 30 years and that `traditional' FPA can be adapted to aid the task of understanding the complex arena of European foreign policy defined here as constituted by three interrelated types of activity; Community, Union and National (member states') foreign policy. Having sketched out an analytical framework which demonstrates the continuing strengths of FPA, the article reflects upon what we might learn from this application about the weaknesses of this mode of analysis. Continuing problems notwithstanding, a revitalized FPA is revealed here which has the potential to incorporate both positivist and `post-positivist' approaches.

Throughout Latin America during the past 15 years, new democratic or postwar governments have faced demands for transitional justice following the end of authoritarian rule or the conclusion of internal armed conflicts.Demands for justice for serious past abuses have often been met by threats of destabilization by the perpetrators and calls for forgiving and forgetting in the name of reconciliation.Although recent developments in and interpretations of international law oblige states to punish those responsible for serious human rights violations, many transitional governments insist that reconciliation requires broad amnesty laws. This essay first reviews basic legal and conceptual issues relating to prosecution of, and grants of amnesty to, those responsible for gross human rights abuses during earlier periods. A comparative examination follows, starting with El Salvador, where the amnesty law constitutes the most comprehensive and successful action to end efforts to address past abuses. The essay then reviews the status of efforts in Argentina, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, and South Africa, where, despite amnesty laws, civil society and courts have sought to uncover the truth about the past, hold perpetrators accountable, and obtain redress for victims.

Buultjens examines the utility of history as a paradigm on which to build a prognosis of the future. With examples from the past, the discussion centers around two fundamentals. First, historical patterns may prove to be faulty models as they tend to focus on clusters of events and, usually, on the leaders/victors of that era, hence not representing the entire picture. These leaders, says Buultjens, are typically MCGA-egoists who influence international politics through their personal motives. Second, these historic clusters seldom contain elements yielding enduring or transferable conclusions upon which to build valid prognoses for the future. From historical patterns, several trends emerge: (1) the phaseout of conflict after the Cold War; (2) modern government and media culture prevent the emergence of "political supermen" and minimize disruption; (3) democracy, in its familiar form, curtails its rate of expansion; and (4) the spirit of separatism permeates as a result of collapse of yet another empire. The author is not in favor of disregarding historical analyses, but rather in questioning messages it provides so as not to extract erroneous lessons.

Zohar applies Talmudic views on communal sin to contemporary political discourse by posing the question "Are we our brothers' keepers?" The essay addresses international responsibility to protect victims of oppression worldwide. This discussion is particularly valuable in today's political system where the national sovereignty of a state may attempt to outweigh the victims' claim of persecution. While asserting that economic sanction, primarilyboycott, in lieu of military action, is the most effective means of curtailing the actions of the oppressor government, he presents the views of Maimonides and Nachmanides on the Noahide Code of Jewish law. The former advocates full-scale embargo policy and holds all citizens responsible for acquiescing in the sins of their rulers and hence of communal sin, thereby justifying intervention. The latter, and more commonly accepted today, urges elimination of (direct or indirect) participation in the deeds of the perpetrators, the "clean-hands" approach, and hence allows for national boundaries to overshadow injustices occurring within them. Both types of boycott converge in that any transaction that fails to undermine the perpetrating regime is in some way facilitating its existence.

International systems have historically come in two forms: those based on the balance of power and those of a revolutionary nature, including systems organized around bipolar competition. Hoffmann finds the world order of 1987 to contain both these systems and judges it both ambiguous and original. While the tension of these extremes can make the world appear "anarchical," there are certain agreed upon rules by which the superpowers interact. These rules ultimately preserve order by embracing competition between the United States and the Soviet Union; superpower confrontation is prevented by each nation holding to their own ideals and sovereignty while embracing nuclear deterrence. Having revealed the rules of the superpower game, Hoffmann then subjects them to ethical judgment. Despite the historic duration of peace between superpowers that seems to have been sustained by these rules, Hoffmann finds them both ethically flawed and ultimately unstable. Turning to a brief consideration of United States foreign policy, he points to particular moral difficulties in U.S. stances and urges the development of superpower rules that are effective and ethical.

The ICTY closed its doors in 2017. It had been set up in 1993 in order to prosecute crimes committed during the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Although its mandate was limited to that of a criminal court, the Tribunal aimed at strengthening the rule of law in the countries under its jurisdiction. This book examines in what respect the ICTY had an impact on the Bosnian and Serbian criminal justice systems. It examines five areas where the footprint of the international tribunal is most tangible: national war crimes institutions, domestic criminal legislation and jurisprudence, witnesses' and victims' matters, and the use of technology in the criminal process. In the end, it is determined whether this influence indeed contributed to the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Academics might be interested in this research as it contributes to understanding the domestic impact of international institutions. Practitioners will be guided in setting up and operating international war crimes courts, if strengthening the rule of law is a desired (side) effect of that court

Warum streben die Staaten Ost- und Mitteleuropas in die Europäische Union? Warum hat die Europäische Union sich zur Osterweiterung entschlossen? Warum werden formelle Beitrittsverhandlungen bisher nur mit Estland, Polen, Slowenien, der Tschechischen Republik und Ungarn geführt? Ein soziologischer Ansatz zur Analyse internationaler Institutionen und Organisationen beantwortet diese Fragen am schlüssigsten. In der soziologischen Perspektive repräsentiert die EU die europäische liberale Staatengemeinschaft. Staaten, die die Werte und Normen der liberalen Gemeinschaft teilen, streben auch die Mitgliedschaft in der Union an. Die EU erweitert sich, weil sie ihren konstitutiven Ideen verpflichtet ist. Staaten, die die Gemeinschaftswerte und -normen internalisiert haben und ihr innen- und außenpolitisches Verhalten an ihnen ausrichten, haben das Recht erworben, der Gemeinschaftsorganisation beizutreten. Für die formellen Beitrittsverhandlungen hat die EU die Staaten ausgewählt, die die größten Fortschritte bei der Internalisierung der Gemeinschaftswerte und -normen gemacht haben. (Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft / FUB)

Namibia - das frühere Südwestafrika - ist eines der trockensten Länder der Erde, weshalb seine unberührte Umwelt besonders empfindlich und schutzbedürftig ist. In dieser Publikation werden nationales Umweltrecht und namibische Umweltpolitik im Zusammenspiel mit internationalen Umweltnormen und -standards untersucht. Auch das Umweltrecht der Afrikanischen Union und der Entwicklungsgemeinschaft des südlichen Afrikas wird behandelt. Die Publikation reflektiert rechtliche und politische Optionen zur Regulierung von Sektor relevanten Umweltinteressen, die auch für die internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und wirtschaftlichen Austausch relevant sind. Darüber hinaus bietet das Werk eine solide Grundlage für die rechtsvergleichende Umweltrechtswissenschaft. Mit Beiträgen von Shirley Bethune, Clinton Hay, Pieter Heyns, Manfred O. Hinz, Jonathan M. Kamwi, Peter Frank Koep, Eliamani Laltaika, Isaac Mapaure, Willem Odendaal, Felicity F. Owoses, Oliver Ruppel, Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting, Elize Shakalela, Hugo Meyer van den Berg, Clemens C. C. von Doderer, Anielle von Finckenstein und Detlof von Oertzen.