Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article evaluates a spectrum of emergency responses by states. We are interested in exploring the variety of contexts in which states respond to internal and external crisis, and the manner in which international law contextualises and responds to the use of extreme measures by states. While international lawyers have become attuned to the prerogatives of states in derogating from their international human rights treaty obligations, we contend that this constitutes only one aspect of state emergency responses. We explore the extent to which states resort to extra-ordinary measures in multiple ways. In particular, we explore the relationship between war and emergency, from a theoretical point of view. Both classic inter-state conflicts are examined, as are the multiple situations of internal armed conflict, that frequently escape precise legal definition under international law. We take the view that international law has taken a limited and unrepresentative view of the scope and breadth of the emergency phenomena in state practice. From this general position some general observations follow. First, we identify the tendency of legal scholars to assert that clear dichotomies exist between normal and extreme conditions, when such clear-cut distinctions are not present. From this, we argue that `war' and `emergency', are not unique and entirely distinct phenomena. In short, we submit that emergency and its associated practices is a far more wide-spread and pervasive aspect of state experience and action than has generally been accepted by legal scholars and political thinkers. The consequence of this rethinking is a need to redefine the resort to the extraordinary in our perception of state behaviour and to modify our theoretical perspectives accordingly.

FOR MANY YEARS THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY WAS REGARDED THROUGH THE PRISM OF SUPERPOWER CONFRONTATION. NOW IT APPEARS THAT THAT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WHICH WAS BORN BY THAT TRADITION HAS COLLAPSED. A NEW AND DEEPER PARADIGM TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF INSECURITY IS NEED AND STUDENTS LOOK FORWARD TO THE CREATION OF NEW THEORY. THIS ARTICLE CONSIDERS IT USEFUL TO TAKE A FRESH AND UNBIASED LOOK AT THE HISTORICAL SOURCES OF CONFLICTS AND THEN TO COMPARE THEM WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION. IT EXPLORES ROME AND THE BARBARIANS, THE EAST-WEST CONFRONTATION, AND, THE REDISCOVERY OF THE TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF CONFLICT.

In folgenden Beitrag stellt die Autorin aus allgemeinpädagogischer Perspektive den aktuellen Diskurs um Deregulierung von Bildung in einen breiteren Bezugsrahmen. Zunächst werden mit Rekurs auf die neo-institutionalistische Perspektive grundlegende Zusammenhänge zum Verhältnis von Staat und moderner Bildung dargestellt, um die grundsätzliche Bedeutung der Systementwicklung in modernen Gesellschaften einzuordnen und oftmals übersteigerte Reformerwartungen nachzuvollziehen. Den Kern des Beitrags bildet eine Diskussion, mit der Deregulierungsüberlegungen und Maßnahmen im Schulwesen in einen internationalen und systematischen Zusammenhang gerückt werden. Dem Beitrag liegt ein komplementäres, nicht hierarchisches Verständnis von Wissensformen - Expertenwissen und Reflexionswissen - zugrunde, das vor dem Hintergrund komplexer und kontroverser Diskussionen divergierende Zugangs- und Umgangsweisen aufzeigen will. Auf der Folie eines diskurstheoretischen Zugangs weist die Autorin darauf hin, "dass Reformen sich nicht in einem sprach- und bedeutungsfreien Raum bewegen, sondern dass die Relevanzen und Priorisierungen von Reformen immer kommunikativ begleitet sind". Die Autorin präsentiert historische Vorläufer von Deregulierung in international-vergleichender Perspektive und weist auf die Vielgestaltigkeit ihrer Entscheidungsformen in der Schule hin. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Diskussion der Wirkungen aktueller Reformen um Deregulierung in der (bildungspolitischen) Praxis und der Frage danach, wie damit in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung umgegangen werden kann. (DIPF/Orig.).

The study of international political economy is distinguished not only by its substantive focus but also by its continuing attention to cooperative, or at least rule-guided, arrangements. These cooperative arrangements are defined variously: as an open world economy by Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner, and as strong international regimes by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. But in either case, the problems of cooperation and order are not approached simply as tactical alliances or as limiting cases of international anarchy. Instead, close attention is paid to the possibilities for rule making and institution building, however fragile and circumscribed they may be. By this view, the absence of a Hobbesian "common power to keep them all in awe" does not preclude the establishment of some effective joint controls over the international environment. Elaborating on this perspective, Brian Barry argues that "international affairs are not a pure anarchy in which nobody has any reason for expecting reciprocal relations to hold up. In economic matters, particularly, there is a good deal of room for stable expectations."

Intro -- Disaster Management and International Space Law -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Foreword -- Acronyms -- Introduction -- 1 Addressing Disasters in Today's World -- 2 A Premise on the Method -- 1 Disaster Prevention -- 1.1 A Historical Overview -- 1.2 What Is a "Disaster" of International Significance? -- 1.3 Natural and Man-Made Disasters -- 1.4 The Prohibition of Transboundary Pollution -- 1.5 The Duty to Notify Impending Man-Made Disasters -- 1.6 Conclusions -- 2 Humanitarian Assistance in the Wake of Disasters -- 2.1 The Consent of an Affected State to Humanitarian Assistance -- 2.2 Explicit and Implicit Refusal to Humanitarian Assistance in International Practice -- 2.3 Arbitrary Refusal to Humanitarian Assistance in Situations of Armed Conflict -- 2.4 Arbitrary Refusal to Relief Flights -- 2.5 Arbitrary Refusal to Humanitarian Assistance in Situations of Disaster -- 2.6 Refusing Humanitarian Assistance and Human Rights -- 2.7 What Happens When Humanitarian Assistance Is Arbitrarily Refused? -- 2.8 Refusing Humanitarian Assistance and the Role of the Security Council -- 2.9 Towards a Responsibility to Protect in Case of Disaster? -- 2.10 Airdrops and the Defence of Necessity -- 2.11 Ascertaining the Arbitrariness of Refusal -- 2.12 The Duty to Provide Humanitarian Assistance upon Request -- 2.13 Conclusions -- 3 The Operation of Satellites and the Consent of the Underlying State -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Is a Delimitation between Airspace and Outer Space Needed? -- 3.3 Usque ad Coelum -- 3.4 Spatialist Theories -- 3.5 Functional Theory -- 3.6 Conclusions -- 4 Remote Sensing and Disaster Management -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 The Legal Value of General Assembly Resolutions -- 4.3 The Legal Value of the Remote Sensing Principles -- 4.4 The Principles of Remote Sensing as a Means to Interpret the Outer Space Treaty.

This article was written by Roderick Ogley shortly after the appearance of Hedley Bull's seminal article in World Politics but had remained unpublished by the author up until now. To some it may seem unnecessary and wearisome to return to the material and content of the "Great Debate". Yet, the publication of the article (in a slightly revised form) in this Special Issue is timely and of value as it does touch upon a number of important points concerning approaches to the study of international relations. Indeed, the most interesting and remarkable aspect of the essay is that, though written somefourteen years ago, it still seems fresh and applicable to the study of international relations - which may be its strongest comment on the state of the discipline.