Search results

Currently, in Ukraine there is increase of process of labour migration of Ukrainian citizens abroad. In connection with what there is necessity of proper regulation of labour activity of migrant workers, implementation of measures to comply with international legal standards in the field of labour, implementation of measures regarding increase of the level of social protection of Ukrainian citizens traveling abroad and in case of their return from abroad.

The methodology is based on the general scientific dialectical method of cognition. Also, number of scientific methods were used. Legal regulation of labor migrants from Ukraine abroad was considered due to methods of analysis and synthesis. The directions of improving legal regulation of labor and social protection of migrant workers were identified by using structural and logical methods. Forms and methods of formal logic were widely used in the work: concepts, definitions, proofs, judgments, analogy, comparisons, generalizations, et

The aim of the article is to explore the mechanism of legal regulation of labour of migrants workers and identify ways of increase the level of social protection of Ukrainian citizens who are migrants workers. To achieve the goal the author analyzed the most important international legal acts that regulate legal migration. In the article the concept of migrant worker was analyzed and identified what kind of migrants is included to migrant worker. Particular attention is paid to analyses of bilateral agreements concluded by Ukraine with other countries on the employment and social protection of migrants. Content was determined of the employment contract and its role in regulating the legal relations of migrant workers with foreign employers. The basic guarantees of social protection of migrant.

In the article the author determined the necessity Ukraine joins to the main international conventions that regulate labor migration issues, the provisions of which should be the basis for the legal regulation of labor migrants' activity and ensuring their rights are respected. The necessity to conclude bilateral interstate agreements on regulating the employment processes of Ukrainian citizens abroad, guarantees that arise in the course of labor activity of migrant workers and social security issues, was determined. First of all, such agreements should be concluded with the countries with the highest number of migrant workers.

In February and March 2014, Ukraine was literally overrun by a chain of events that eventually led to Crimea's incorporation into Russian territory. Crimean and Russian authorities jointly used the internal conflict in Ukraine to deprive the Ukrainian government of its control over Crimea, to hold a so-called referendum, and to declare Crimea's independence. On the day after independence was declared, Russia formally recognized Crimea as an independent state,[1] and the Crimean parliament requested Russia to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation.[2] Soon after that, the accession treaty was signed, and, within a few more days, all Russian constitutional requirements for Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation were fulfilled.[3]All parties to the conflict refer to international law to justify their positions. The Crimean authorities and Russia claim that Russia had a legal basis for intervening and that Crimea had the right to secede from Ukraine. Most states, however, reject these claims. Thus, three questions are presented: Was Crimea's secession lawful under international law? To what extent has Russia violated international law? And what is Crimea's status? This article addresses these questions. Part 1 briefly describes the relevant circumstances and events leading to Crimea's secession. Part 2 reviews the legal obligations between Ukraine and Russia concerning territorial integrity and the prohibition against the use and threat of force. Parts 3 and 4 discuss the legality of Russia's intervention in Crimea and the legality of Crimea's secession from Ukraine, respectively. Part 5 concludes this article by answering the questions it raises.[1] See "Executive Order on Recognizing Republic of Crimea," President's web-site, March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20596.[2] Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, "Crimea Applies to be Part of Russian Federation After Vote to Leave Ukraine," The Guardian, March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/ukraine-crimea-russia-referendum-complain-result.[3] See in regard to the Russian constitutional process Otto Luchterhandt, who argues that during that process Russian constitutional law was violated (Otto Luchterhandt, "Annexion der Krim – Putin verstößt gegen russische Verfassung," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 18, 2014).

In February and March 2014, Ukraine was literally overrun by a chain of events that eventually led to Crimea's incorporation into Russian territory. Crimean and Russian authorities jointly used the internal conflict in Ukraine to deprive the Ukrainian government of its control over Crimea, to hold a so-called referendum, and to declare Crimea's independence. On the day after independence was declared, Russia formally recognized Crimea as an independent state,[1] and the Crimean parliament requested Russia to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation.[2] Soon after that, the accession treaty was signed, and, within a few more days, all Russian constitutional requirements for Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation were fulfilled.[3]All parties to the conflict refer to international law to justify their positions. The Crimean authorities and Russia claim that Russia had a legal basis for intervening and that Crimea had the right to secede from Ukraine. Most states, however, reject these claims. Thus, three questions are presented: Was Crimea's secession lawful under international law? To what extent has Russia violated international law? And what is Crimea's status? This article addresses these questions. Part 1 briefly describes the relevant circumstances and events leading to Crimea's secession. Part 2 reviews the legal obligations between Ukraine and Russia concerning territorial integrity and the prohibition against the use and threat of force. Parts 3 and 4 discuss the legality of Russia's intervention in Crimea and the legality of Crimea's secession from Ukraine, respectively. Part 5 concludes this article by answering the questions it raises.[1] See "Executive Order on Recognizing Republic of Crimea," President's web-site, March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20596.[2] Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, "Crimea Applies to be Part of Russian Federation After Vote to Leave Ukraine," The Guardian, March 17, 2014, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/ukraine-crimea-russia-referendum-complain-result.[3] See in regard to the Russian constitutional process Otto Luchterhandt, who argues that during that process Russian constitutional law was violated (Otto Luchterhandt, "Annexion der Krim – Putin verstößt gegen russische Verfassung," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 18, 2014).

South Asia is a region of one billion people, divided into seven states and numerous religious, caste, ethnic, and linguistic groups. It is the site of ethnic and religious violence that is transnational in its implications; the region has been host to four major wars and several war scares, most recently the India-Pakistan crisis over Kashmir in 1

Research has demonstrated how membership in more democratic regional intergovernmental organizations (ROs) can strengthen the prospects for democracy. However, a significant number of ROs are dominated by autocratic members who have quite different preferences: to limit democratic contagion and consolidate authoritarian rule against democratic challengers. We outline a menu of mechanisms through which ROs with authoritarian memberships might have pernicious effects on the prospects for democratic rule. We use cross-national quantitative analyses to demonstrate that membership in more deeply authoritarian international organizations is associated with autocratization. We supplement the quantitative results with an analysis of twenty-nine of the most authoritarian ROs and illustrative case studies. The multi-method approach strengthens inference by showing that authoritarian international organizations do in fact engage in behaviors inimical to democratic rule.

The question of how China will relate to a globalising world is one of the key issues in contemporary international relations and scholarship on China, yet the angle of innovation has not been properly addressed within the field. This book explores innovation in China from an International Relations perspective in terms of four areas: foreign and security policy, international relations theory, soft power/image management, and resistance. Under the complex condition of globalisation, innovation becomes a particularly useful analytical concept because it is well suited to capturing the hybridity of actors and processes under globalisation. By adopting this theme, studies not only reveal a China struggling to make the future through innovation, but also call attention to how China itself is made in the process. The book is divided into four sections: Part 1 focuses on conceptual innovation in China's foreign and security policies since 1949. Part 2 explores theoretical innovation in terms of a potential Chinese school of International Relations Theory. Part 3 expands on innovation in terms of image management, a form of soft power, in particular how China exports its image both to a domestic and foreign audience. Part 4 highlights how innovation is used in China by grassroot popular groups to resist official narratives. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of Chinese studies, Chinese foreign policy and international relations, international relations theory and East Asian security.

International government organizations with a global outreach are working on global health issues to achieve the objective of Health for All. The key actors in global health working on global health problems are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (Johnson, Stotskopt, & Shi, 2018). These international organizations participate in generating and sharing knowledge, engage in advocacy,provide global funds for health efforts. Our paper will analyze the structure, goals, and processes of global health organizations, UNESCO and UNAIDS.