Suchergebnisse

Poverty and underdevelopment plague millions of people in the world today. Interestingly, the 800 million people that are currently living on less than a dollar a day correlate very closely with the 750 million people who were under colonial subjugation in 1945. In an effort to understand how the disparities in development came about, the theory of self-determination will be defined and historically assessed. Through qualitative evaluation of the principle and history of self-determination and case studies on three key regions that have never known genuine self-rule, it will become clear that the doctrine of self-determination only ever existed in rhetoric. Resource trap theory will be applied to those who have been plagued by outside rule and a general assessment of the state of self-determination in the world will be given. Lastly, an argument for what right transcendently will be given based on the current state of affairs and on Kantian ethics. ; 2013-05-01 ; B.A. ; Sciences, Dept. of Political Science ; Bachelors ; This record was generated from author submitted information.

This article focuses on discussions of territorial rights and self-determination in the last 15–20 years. Theories of territorial jurisdiction typically combine two elements. First, they offer an account of foundational title: What gives a particular set of people a claim to be located in an area, including the right to form political institutions to govern that space? Second, they offer an account of legitimate jurisdiction: What is the moral basis of a state's right to govern the area and its population? This article begins by reconstructing prominent accounts of foundational title and legitimate jurisdiction. After canvassing these views, I highlight three areas where further work is needed, particularly as the territorial states system begins to be challenged by climate change: the appropriate balance of sovereignty and international authority in a world of global interdependence, how to rectify imperial and colonial legacies in the states system, and the just distribution of territory.

Abstract
A proliferation of data-generating devices, sensors, and applications has led to unprecedented amounts of digital data. We live in an era of datafication, one in which life is increasingly quantified and transformed into intelligence for private or public benefit. When used responsibly, this offers new opportunities for public good. The potential of data is evident in the possibilities offered by open data and data collaboratives—both instances of how wider access to data can lead to positive and often dramatic social transformation. However, three key forms of asymmetry currently limit this potential, especially for already vulnerable and marginalized groups: data asymmetries, information asymmetries, and agency asymmetries. These asymmetries limit human potential, both in a practical and psychological sense, leading to feelings of disempowerment and eroding public trust in technology. Existing methods to limit asymmetries (such as open data or consent) as well as some alternatives under consideration (data ownership, collective ownership, personal information management systems) have limitations to adequately address the challenges at hand. A new principle and practice of digital self-determination (DSD) is therefore required. The study and practice of DSD remain in its infancy. The characteristics we have outlined here are only exploratory, and much work remains to be done so as to better understand what works and what does not. We suggest the need for a new research framework or agenda to explore DSD and how it can address the asymmetries, imbalances, and inequalities—both in data and society more generally—that are emerging as key public policy challenges of our era.

How does a "right" to self-determination fare next to the state practice of intervention? If self-determination leads to cultural homogeneity, does it also lead to oppression? Adapted from the source document.

Self-determination defined as a legal arrangement that gives a group independent statehood or expanded powers within a federal state is a basic right, but a qualified one. Something that has not been practiced much in the past is institutionalizing this right, & the article asks whether this would be feasible. The article argues that because many of these factors are difficult to predict that a concluding answer is difficult. Whether this type of institution would be successful depends on whether such an institution would encourage just self-determination claims while at the same time would limit violence & discourage unjust claims. Unfortunately, the possibility exists that all such movements would blackmail the larger society making this type of movement difficult to develop. Whether any such institution would be successful depends on how effective it would be. R. Larsen

"When can a group legitimately form its own state? Under international law, some groups can but others cannot. But the standard is unclear, and traditional legal analysis has failed to elucidate it. In The Theory of Self-Determination, leading scholars chart new territory in our theoretical conception of self-determination. Drawing from diverse scholarship in international law, philosophy, and political science, they attempt to move beyond the prevailing nationalist conceptions of group definition. At issue are such universal questions as, when does a group qualify as a 'people'? Does history matter? Or is it a question of ethnic status? Are these matters properly solved by popular vote? Anchored in modern analytical political philosophy but with implications for a wide range of scholarship, this volume will prove essential for scholars and practitioners of international law, global justice, and international relations"--