Suchergebnisse

The BRICS' impact can be evaluated based on the degree of political coherence among them, as well as their capacity to influence the international system. This article will from the outset assume that the BRICS form a heterogeneous coalition of often competing powers that share a common fundamental political objective: to erode Western hegemonic claims by protecting the principle which these claims are deemed to most threaten, namely the political sovereignty of states. The BRICS form a coalition of sovereign state defenders. While they do not seek to form an anti-Western political coalition based on a counter-proposal or radically different vision of the world, they are concerned with maintaining their independence of judgment and national action in a world that is increasingly economically and socially interdependent. They consider that state sovereignty trumps all, including, of course, the political nature of its underpinning regimes. Thus, the BRICS -- even the democratic ones -- fundamentally diverge from the liberal vision of Western countries. Adapted from the source document.

"The concept of state sovereignty is increasingly challenged by a proliferation of international economic instruments and major international economic institutions. States from both the south and north are re-examining and debating the extent to which they should cede control over their economic and social policies to achieve global economic efficiency in an interdependent world. International lawyers are seriously rethinking the subject of state sovereignty, in relation to the operation of the main international economic institutions, namely the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The contributions in this volume, bringing together leading scholars from the developed and developing worlds, take up the challenge of debating the meaning of sovereignty and the impact of international economic law on state sovereignty. The first part looks at the issues from the perspectives of general international law, international economic law and legal theory. Part two discusses the impact of trade liberalisation on the sovereignty of both industrialised and developing states and Part three concentrates on the challenge to state sovereignty created by the proliferation of investment treaties and the significant recent growth of investment treaty based arbitration cases. Part four focuses on the domestic and international effects of international financial intermediaries and markets. Part five explores the tensions and intersections between the international regulation of trade and investment, international human rights and state sovereignty."--Bloomsbury Publishing

Advances in the legalisation of international relations, and the growing number of international organisations raise the question whether state sovereignty had its day. The paper defines sovereignty in a way that allows for degrees of sovereignty. Its analysis assumes that while sovereignty has become more limited, a trend which may continue, there is no sign that it is likely to disappear. The paper offers thoughts towards a normative analysis of these developments and the prospects they offer. Advocates of progress towards world government, while wise to many of current defects, are blind to the evils that a world government will breed, and to the advantages of relatively sovereign political societies. The paper identifies the advantages of the legalisation of international relations, and the growth of international bodies. The dilemma of internationalisation is that its advantages can be obtained only if international organs acquire some of the characteristics of successful sovereign political societies, in attracting the loyalty and shaping the sense of identity of their members – a faraway prospect. The best we can hope for is a mix international regime of relatively sovereign states subject to extensive regulation by international organisations and laws. That requires a pluralistic jurisprudence of international organisations, allowing for great local diversity, of which we have so far seen only small beginnings.

It is commonly assumed that Indigenous American nations had neither sovereignty in international law nor title to their territories when Europeans first arrived; North America was legally vacant and European powers could gain title to it simply by discovery, symbolic acts, occupation, or treaties among themselves. It follows, on this view, that current Indigenous claims to internal sovereignty or a "third order of government" have no historical basis. This paper argues that this viewpoint is misguided and cannot be justified either by reference to positive international law or basic principles of justice. The author's view is that Indigenous American nations had exclusive title to their territories at the time of European contact and participated actively in the formation of Canada and the United States. This fact requires us to rewrite our constitutional histories and reconsider the current status of Indigenous American nations.

THE DEBATE ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY AND LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY HAS BECOME MORE PRONOUNCED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT AND THE SINGLE MARKET PROGRAM. THIS ARTICLE, HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF ENGAGING IN A DEBATE POLARIZED AROUND ABSTRACT CONCEPTS SUCH AS SOVEREIGNTY AND FEDERALISM, WILL FOCUS UPON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ACCELERATION OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IT DESCRIBES THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT WITHIN THE EC, HOW THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY MIGHT BE DEVELOPED, AND ADVOCATES IMPROVED PROCEDURES FOR DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY.

Ist Souveränität weiterhin eine brauchbare Kategorie für liberale Demokratien? Obwohl aktuell diskutiert wird, die Souveränität aufzugeben, argumentiert der Band, dass solche Bestrebungen fehlgeleitet sind. Durch eine Rekonstruktion des Souveränitäts-Diskurses in Politik- und Rechtstheorie wird gezeigt, dass wir zu einer demokratischen Vorstellung von Souveränität gelangen können