Suchergebnisse

Over recent decades a judicialization process of international dispute settlement procedures has taken place. Yet, the judicialization of procedures remains meaningless if the procedures are not used and accepted by disputing states in practice. Prominent theoretical approaches point to different conditions under which this is to be expected. Realism emphasizes the international distribution of power, institutionalism stresses the importance of the institutional design of international dispute settlement procedures, and liberalism points to the domestic institutional setting of the participating states. The article confronts these theoretical expectations with states' actual dispute settlement behavior in the international trade regime, the United Nations Security Council, the European human rights regime and the regime on the protection of endangered species in the 1970s/80s and 1990s/2000s, respectively. Its main finding is that, compared to realism and liberalism, institutionalism fares better in explaining the judicialization of states' dispute settlement behavior. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

Over recent decades a judicialization process of international dispute settlement procedures has taken place. Yet, the judicialization of procedures remains meaningless if the procedures are not used and accepted by disputing states in practice. Prominent theoretical approaches point to different conditions under which this is to be expected. Realism emphasizes the international distribution of power, institutionalism stresses the importance of the institutional design of international dispute settlement procedures, and liberalism points to the domestic institutional setting of the participating states. The article confronts these theoretical expectations with states' actual dispute settlement behavior in the international trade regime, the United Nations Security Council, the European human rights regime and the regime on the protection of endangered species in the 1970s/80s and 1990s/2000s, respectively. Its main finding is that, compared to realism and liberalism, institutionalism fares better in explaining the judicialization of states' dispute settlement behavior.

Contents--pt.I. Articles, etc.--pt.II. Authors. ; Filmed with v. 5, no. 4 (1895)-v. 6 (1896) ; Indexed by Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The United States and Australia converged by the mid‐1980s on receptive and expan sive immigration policies reflecting "client" politics. Australia has since pursued a more restrictive and selective course while the United States has resisted pressures toward such a stance. The authors account for these differences by assessing the theoretical perspectives of interests, rights, and states. Conflicts among groups with direct interests in policy outcomes are the principal source of immigration politics, but a comparison of the roles of rights and state institutions helps explain peculiarities of the two cases. The distinctive Australian policy trajectory is shaped by greater volatility of public opinion about immigration and multiculturalism, and by political institutions that are more responsive to popular sentiment.

Through a critical examination of European immigration policy and using the case of Afghan asylum seekers in the European continent, this article argues that the politics of labelling and the criminalisation and securitisation of migration undermine the protection framework for the globally displaced. However, the issue goes deeper than state politicking to circumvent responsibilities under international law. The construction of migrants as victims at best, and as cultural and security threats at worst, particularly in the case of Muslim refugees, not only assists in their dehumanisation, it also legitimises actions taken against them through the perpetuation of a particular discourse on the European Self and the non-European Other. At one level, such a dynamic underscores the long-standing struggle of Europe to articulate its identity within the economic, demographic and cultural anxieties produced by the dynamics of globalisation. At another, these existing constructions, which hierarchise 'worthiness', are limited in their reflection of the complex realities that force people to seek refuge. Simultaneously, the labels, and the discourse of which they are part, make it possible for Europe to deny asylum claims and expedite deportations while being globally accepted as a human rights champion. This process also makes it possible for Europe to categorise turbulent contexts such as Afghanistan as a 'safe country', even at a time when the global refugee protection regime demands creative expansion. Ultimately, the politics of European migration policy illustrates the evolution of European Orientalist discourse – utilised in the past to legitimise colonisation and domination, now used to legitimise incarceration and deportation.

From the Roman Colosseum to the Yankee Stadium, the Olympics to the Super Bowl, sports have always played a central role in societies. With so much at stake—money, pride, power (and occasionally even fun)—sports are undeniably political. Yet despite this recognition, political scientists and policy scholars devote little attention to the study of sports, especially compared with other disciplines like business, law, and economics. We offer reasons for this void and suggest how political scientists can begin to fill it. In our view, the nexus between sports and politics is not only a vital topic of study on its own, but it can also provide a lens through which to examine—and test—broader questions in the discipline. We propose how scholars can think more systematically about the interaction of politics and sports and leverage the distinctive qualities of sports to improve causal identification across a range of issue areas and subfields in political science and policy studies.

Gladstone, Whiggery and the Liberal Party, 1874–1886. By T. A.Jenkins. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1988. vi, 328 pp. £32.50. The Gladstonian Turn of Mind: Essays Presented to J. B. Conacher. Edited by Bruce L. Kinzer. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1985. xv, 294 pp. £35.00. Gladstone, Home Rule and the Ulster Question, 1882–93. By James Loughlin. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. 1986. 369 pp. No price given. Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis: The British House of Commons in 1886. By W. C. Lubenow. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1988. vii, 389 pp. £37.50. The Gladstone Diaries with Cabinet Minutes and Prime Ministerial Correspondence, Volume IX, January 1875‐December 1880. Edited by H. C. G. Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1986. xcvii, 714 pp. £55.00. Parnell and the First Home Rule Episode, 1884–87. By Alan O'Day. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. 1986. x, 314 pp. £25.00.

"Undocumented politics is a poignant ethnography of gender and political agency in North America's most excluded migrant communities. Author Abigail Andrews takes us from the indigenous villages of Oaxaca, Mexico into the lives of undocumented families in the barrios of Southern California and back. Drawing on two years of transnational fieldwork, archives, surveys, and the voices of migrants themselves, she compares the histories of two very distinct transnational communities. The book reveals how migrants' cross-border struggles are shaped by local practices of control, in both the places they live and the places they leave behind"--Provided by publisher

The aim of this article is to analyze Plato's epistemology of politics in the light of Book VII of the Republic, in which the Allegory of the Cave is introduced. The problem named in the title is presented within the framework of a veritative interpretation of Greek ontology (referencing Charles Kahn's work) and against the backdrop of Plato's polemic with sophistry (Protagoras and Gorgias), along with references to the sources of Plato's inspiration – the Eleatics and Pythagoreans. In my analysis I propose hypotheses concerning certain aspects of the Cave Allegory (e.g. the status of the fire) and present my interpretation of Plato's politico-philosophical project.