Suchergebnisse

"This book shows how the EU's dual sovereignty-legitimacy problem can be resolved through the political concept of European citizenship, which can serve both to define the scope of European sovereignty and to justify EU power beyond national democracy. It reconceptualizes the EU's legitimacy problem and demonstrates how sources of legitimacy can be identified and give rise to European sovereignty. It argues that sovereignty should be based on the will of citizens acting through various political bodies within the EU: city halls, regional entities, national governments, and EU institutions, and develops a general theory, arguably applicable to any political order. The EU is an unprecedented political project that is in tension with traditional forms of state legitimation based on national democracy, as nationalist and populists throughout Europe often make clear. Against this backdrop, the book fully articulates the notion of European sovereignty and argues that the EU's sources of legitimacy are based on European citizenship and national democracy. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European Union politics, European integration, international institutions and more broadly to international relations"--

The dispute between Britain and Iran relating to the nationalization and seizure of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company concessions and refinery plants by the government of Premier Mossadegh aroused unusual interest when brought before the International Court of Justice by Britain in 1951. The Iranian Oil Nationalization Act, coming after long and bitter negotiations between the oil company and the Iranian Government over oil royalties and operational arrangements, carried with it important political and strategic considerations.

The United States is engaged in a war on terror against enemies who wage "asymmetric war" through terrorism, media manipulation, and "law-fare"---exploiting judicial processes to achieve political or military objectives. This Article explores whether the fledgling International Criminal Court (ICC) could eventually be exploited by these groups as a tool of asymmetric "law-fare." It briefly traces the history of the ICC and recounts why the United States opposes the Court. Examining the methods of asymmetric war, the Authors then explore whether the ICC could be exploited by future asymmetric warriors. The Authors describe three asymmetric methods that could be used to exploit the Court: (1) misusing the Court's investigative processes, (2) filing questionable or fraudulent complaints, and (3) manipulating mass media. They then discuss three terrorist objectives that could be obtained through asymmetric tactics. The Authors conclude that, at its current stage, the Court does not pose a large threat from this exploitation. A future, more stable ICC, however, could pose a greater danger--especially if the United States ratifies the Rome Treaty.

DOI 10.15826/tetm.2020.1-2.008This article aims to discuss the reasons and consequences of the recent historical monuments' destruction in the United States. The author uses the concept of Foundation myths as well as opinion polls' results and cases from modern history to provide argumentation for the idea of ongoing polarization in American society. The results show that, although the political elites are relatively united on the issue of historical memory, there is a certain division among ordinary citizens. The causes for the recent attacks on the monuments and the historical figures they represent lies in the crisis, caused by the COVID-pandemic, economic downturn and protests over racism. However, the fundamental reason lies in the chronic socio-economic, cultural, and political difficulties, particularly income inequality, political polarization of elites and mass publics of American society. In the conclusion of the article, the author discusses how the discourse over historical figures and foundation myths shaped 2020 Presidential elections in the US and how specific agenda related to Founding Fathers was used by the US President Donald Trump during his campaign.For citation: Sherlock, T. (2020). Evaluating the Legitimacy of the American Foundation Myth. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 76–81.Submitted: 30.10.2020Accepted: 02.12.2020 ; This article aims to discuss the reasons and consequences of the recent historical monuments' destruction in the United States. The author uses the concept of Foundation myths as well as opinion polls' results and cases from modern history to provide argumentation for the idea of ongoing polarization in American society. The results show that, although the political elites are relatively united on the issue of historical memory, there is a certain division among ordinary citizens. The causes for the recent attacks on the monuments and the historical figures they represent lies in the crisis, caused by the COVID-pandemic, economic downturn and protests over racism. However, the fundamental reason lies in the chronic socio-economic, cultural, and political difficulties, particularly income inequality, political polarization of elites and mass publics of American society. In the conclusion of the article, the author discusses how the discourse over historical figures and foundation myths shaped 2020 Presidential elections in the US and how specific agenda related to Founding Fathers was used by the US President Donald Trump during his campaign.For citation: Sherlock, T. (2020). Evaluating the Legitimacy of the American Foundation Myth. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 76–81.Submitted: 30.10.2020Accepted: 02.12.2020

The International Criminal Court (the Court) in The Hague, in fulfilling its mandate to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, is neither able nor intended to investigate all situations of crisis across the world. Selectivity is unavoidable for the operation of this international organization. However, the authority of the Prosecutor of the Court to select and prioritize a situation over other situations is not unfettered. This book studies the situation selection regime at the International Criminal Court. In doing so, it first clarifies the notion of situation under the constituent instrument of the Court, the Rome Statute. In addition to this conceptualization, through describing the situation selection process and criteria, the Court's law, policies and practices in this regard are examined. Dealing with the misunderstanding of the Court's selectivity, this book reads the situation selection regime from the lens of expressivism. This theory justifies the selectivity in the Court's operation. The book is a resource for anyone who seeks more insight into the situation selection regime of the Court.--

The International Criminal Court (the Court) in The Hague, in fulfilling its mandate to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, is neither able nor intended to investigate all situations of crisis across the world. Selectivity is unavoidable for the operation of this international organization. However, the authority of the Prosecutor of the Court to select and prioritize a situation over other situations is not unfettered. This book studies the situation selection regime at the International Criminal Court. In doing so, it first clarifies the notion of situation under the constituent instrument of the Court, the Rome Statute. In addition to this conceptualization, through describing the situation selection process and criteria, the Court's law, policies and practices in this regard are examined. Dealing with the misunderstanding of the Court's selectivity, this book reads the situation selection regime from the lens of expressivism. This theory justifies the selectivity in the Court's operation. The book is a resource for anyone who seeks more insight into the situation selection regime of the Court.--

As an emergent type of charitable organizations, nonpublic fundraising foundations (非公募基金会) are questioned on its legal entity – on whether nonpublic fundraising foundations qualify as a valid type of charitable organizations. In terms of its origin, nonpublic fundraising foundations emerged in China as a product of the mixture of history, reality and imported elements. Fundraising, a key word in the term, is not a right but a duty. The problem with nonpublic fundraising foundations is the overstress on the concept on the one hand and the ignorance of the institution on the other. The solution lies in setting up a sound and clear institution, so as to form an organic system of charitable organizations. The fact that nonpublic fundraising foundations are hardly supported in the existing theories of legal personality reflects the need to reform relevant aspects in the legal system.