The International Criminal Court can be seen as a cosmopolitan response to the problems of global democracy. This article demonstrates how opponents of the Court use a concern for international order to disguise a policy motivated by a narrow conception of the national interest. US opposition reveals the extent to which it fears being held accountable for the way America uses the great power veto on the UN Security Council. America's opposition to the Court has also succeeded in bringing to the surface the extent to which American foreign policy is driven by communitarian conceptions of democracy and international society. Despite promising to hold power accountable for egregious human rights violations, the Court is considered a threat to American sovereignty and dismissed as undemocratic. The article argues that this communitarian understanding of democracy promotion will be increasingly problematic as the processes of globalization undermine the capacity of states to guarantee human rights.
This study aims to unveil the nexus between the governments of the Baltic states and think tanks (TTs), which work on foreign and security policy. The article argues that the Baltic governments wish to use TTs as instruments of foreign policies, as they are highly interested in influencing well-known TTs abroad to further their national interests. The Baltic states undertake a good deal of effort to contribute to debates in the capitals of the powerful nations through the TT channel, hoping that some form of support can be gained for their positions in the international arena. Meanwhile, the governments expect domestic TTs to be visible internationally and influence policy debates by sending Baltic-favourable messages to foreign policy communities. On the other side of the nexus, TTs adapt to government expectations while also trying to maintain some level of independence. The process of using TTs as instruments to further the aims of governments is based mainly on the perceptions of government officials themselves, who are convinced that TTs should serve policy goals. Governments dominate the nexus because TTs depend on governmental support and/or wish to be helpful in furthering governmental goals.
This study aims to unveil the nexus between the governments of the Baltic states and think tanks (TTs), which work on foreign and security policy. The article argues that the Baltic governments wish to use TTs as instruments of foreign policies, as they are highly interested in influencing well-known TTs abroad to further their national interests. The Baltic states undertake a good deal of effort to contribute to debates in the capitals of the powerful nations through the TT channel, hoping that some form of support can be gained for their positions in the international arena. Meanwhile, the governments expect domestic TTs to be visible internationally and influence policy debates by sending Baltic-favourable messages to foreign policy communities. On the other side of the nexus, TTs adapt to government expectations while also trying to maintain some level of independence. The process of using TTs as instruments to further the aims of governments is based mainly on the perceptions of government officials themselves, who are convinced that TTs should serve policy goals. Governments dominate the nexus because TTs depend on governmental support and/or wish to be helpful in furthering governmental goals.
This article introduces the concept of indirect speech and shows what it can contribute to understanding 'legitimacy talk' regarding international institutions. Indirect speech occurs when one kind of illocutionary act is used to communicate another. Examples include euphemism, some forms of politeness and when a request is expressed as a question ('Can you pass the salt?'). Transporting concepts from pragmatics and sociolinguistics, this article argues that legitimacy talk often serves this function in international politics, operating by expressing specific requests in the form of more generalized legitimacy claims. Understanding this double role of legitimacy talk sheds light on otherwise puzzling empirical phenomena, such as why states frame their demands in terms of legitimacy when they are transparently self-serving, why states with different interests can nonetheless express their demands in the same terms, and why they persist in doing so long after there is any realistic hope of being 'persuasive'. An analysis of the debate on Security Council reform illustrates the benefits of this approach for the study of international relations.
The article analyzes the changes in the security environment of Slovakia, which took place after the annexation of the Crimea and the situation in eastern Ukraine. This changed the strategic situation not only in Central and Eastern Europe, but de facto in the European and transatlantic defense complex. These strategic changes not only changed the existing situation that existed since the end of the Cold War, but led to a paradigm shift in security policy. Today, besides defense, citizens of Slovakia also define other vectors, in particular energy, ecological, and cybernetic. They are clearly international in nature, and therefore the Slovak foreign policy and diplomacy must take them into account more intensively than before, possibly to the detriment of other activities. In order to realize its security interests, the Slovak Republic uses its membership in international (NATO, UN) and regional (Visegrad Four, EU, OSCE) organizations and associations, developing its capabilities, flexibility, and mutually reinforcing cooperation. NATO membership is the determining factor in Slovak foreign security.The benefits of this study are consideration of the issues of European security and its interconnectedness with the policy of the Slovak Republic is relevant and at the same time complicated. This is due to the transformation of the European security system and the security and foreign policy of Slovakia as a result of a number of factors.First, the main factors determining the security of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the security policy paradigm that existed in Europe since the end of the Cold War, have changed. The second important factor is Slovakia's response to these changes, because the foreign policy priorities of the country have not yet been determined. In this regard, in the formulation and implementation of the security policy of Slovakia in 2014, there was a period of systemic changes through the annexation by the Russian Federation of Crimea. The Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic, on the one hand, sought to maintain the neutral nature of foreign policy, while the Ministry of Defense did not react to changes. The third factor, which is also closely related to others, is a difficult task, accordingly, to find consensus on the destruction of some of the key priorities of the foreign and security policy of Slovakia, which would lead to the adoption by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs of a comprehensive plan to counter foreign policy challenges, addressed to the Visegrad Four, the Eastern Partnership, the EU and NATO.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Laws Degree at Strathmore University Law School ; This study investigates whether Kenya can maintain the balance between upholding national security and protecting the right to privacy in effecting counter terrorism measures. It examines the implementation of local and international counter terrorism legislation in the domestic jurisdiction. Furthermore, it analyses the extent of derogation from the right to privacy as provided by Article 4 of the ICCPR. In addition, it carries out a comparative study between Ghana; a state that has managed to maintain its national security whilst respecting the right to privacy, and Ethiopia, a state that has countered terrorism through wanton violations of the right to privacy. Best practices are drawn from England. The study concludes by providing viable recommendations on the various issues raised.The central theme of this study investigates whether Kenya can sustain the balance between maintaining national security while respecting the right to privacy in this era of counter terrorism. In attempting to answer this question, a plethora of related questions emerge: How flexible are human rights norms when it comes to extreme threats to national security like terrorism? Do Kenya's geopolitics warrant a greater margin of appreciation in favour of security? Do the security measures employed meet the aim for which they are intended, that is to prevent, reduce or completely eradicate terrorism? The study recognises the proclivity of terrorism to pit the right to privacy against national security. With the evolution of terrorism from significant suicide bombings to now include mass causality shootings, states have adopted measures to counter the crime. Steps towards making national security paramount have taken centre stage and dominated the on-going conversation on dealing with terrorism. Nonetheless, these steps have been highly criticised by various human rights advocates and labelled as anathemas to civil liberties such as the right to privacy. Reconciling the notion of upholding liberties with preserving national security has proven to be one of the greatest challenges of modern times. This study, therefore examines whether this reconciliation can be achieved in Kenya.
Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper, we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the fundamental pillars of Lake's theory of hierarchy in international relations. Comparing the content of Lake's concept of authority with different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake's interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude that Lake?s theory can be characterized as "non-canonical" rethinking of world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake's theory, and at the same time represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this context, Lake's study indicates that reality is something completely different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to explain Lake's view on world politics, and why his findings on authority, subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international relations.
- ; This report presents the main findings of the research project conducted between 2013 and 2016 by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), with support from the Institute for Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ISP PAN). It also maps the project's achievements, examines its policy relevance and identifies various knowledge gaps revealed during the study that should be addressed by new research. The GoodGov project has revealed important governance-related differences between Poland and Norway. These result from the interaction of various internal and external factors, including historical experience and path dependence, geographical location and the challenges it poses, various types of resources and access to them, institutional solutions and membership in various international organisations and frameworks. The latter, such as the EU and the EEA, are of special note as they set their own governance-related priorities, rules and solutions that have both a direct and indirect bearing on national governance in Poland and Norway. Based on the analysis of available data, this research project found that the governance system in Norway is perceived as more efficient than in Poland. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this may also be linked to the application of domestic learning mechanisms in Norway, where review of governance and learning play an important role and the apparent lack of such mechanisms in Poland. Since Norway ranks systematically higher than Poland in all six key categories assessed within the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, one could expect the transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland to be a possible means of improving governance in Poland, including in the three fields in focus in this study—security, energy and migration. However, the potential for governance learning seems to be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland, by the fact that Poland and Norway are in different categories in at least two of the examined fields (energy and migration), and because Norway has decided to remain outside of the EU while Poland is a fully-fledged member. What complicates the picture even more is that the experimentalist approach to governance learning works better in some fields, such as energy and migration, and is much less present and efficient in other governance fields, such as security. Another factor limiting governance transfer is a visible preference for the application of hierarchical, international means of learning instead of nonhierarchical transnational learning practices among professional equals, which is considered to be far more efficient. All the governance-related challenges and differences notwithstanding, Poland and Norway should seek to closely work together for the sake of governance-related improvements.
- ; This report presents the main findings of the research project conducted between 2013 and 2016 by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), with support from the Institute for Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences (ISP PAN). It also maps the project’s achievements, examines its policy relevance and identifies various knowledge gaps revealed during the study that should be addressed by new research. The GoodGov project has revealed important governance-related differences between Poland and Norway. These result from the interaction of various internal and external factors, including historical experience and path dependence, geographical location and the challenges it poses, various types of resources and access to them, institutional solutions and membership in various international organisations and frameworks. The latter, such as the EU and the EEA, are of special note as they set their own governance-related priorities, rules and solutions that have both a direct and indirect bearing on national governance in Poland and Norway. Based on the analysis of available data, this research project found that the governance system in Norway is perceived as more efficient than in Poland. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this may also be linked to the application of domestic learning mechanisms in Norway, where review of governance and learning play an important role and the apparent lack of such mechanisms in Poland. Since Norway ranks systematically higher than Poland in all six key categories assessed within the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project, one could expect the transfer of governance-related knowledge between Norway and Poland to be a possible means of improving governance in Poland, including in the three fields in focus in this study—security, energy and migration. However, the potential for governance learning seems to be hampered by structural differences between Norway and Poland, by the fact that Poland and Norway are in different categories in at least two of the examined fields (energy and migration), and because Norway has decided to remain outside of the EU while Poland is a fully-fledged member. What complicates the picture even more is that the experimentalist approach to governance learning works better in some fields, such as energy and migration, and is much less present and efficient in other governance fields, such as security. Another factor limiting governance transfer is a visible preference for the application of hierarchical, international means of learning instead of nonhierarchical transnational learning practices among professional equals, which is considered to be far more efficient. All the governance-related challenges and differences notwithstanding, Poland and Norway should seek to closely work together for the sake of governance-related improvements.
