Search results

This article analyses the contemporary re-emergence of various and complex political claims founded on sovereignty ("sovereigntism"). After discussing five historical stages in the evolution of sovereigntism, it highlights three structuring features of the post-bipolar international system namely, a growing discrepancy between the affirmation of sovereign equality as a norm and its flawed empirical reality, the perpetuation of an institutionalised hierarchy that no longer reflects the international distribution of power, and the disruption provoked by globalisation, which enables marginalised actors to voice their concerns while provoking resistances on the part of others who feel threatened in their status and identity. Three distinct conceptions of sovereigntism coexist as a result of these three structuring features: 'neo-sovereigntism' (claiming the implementation of sovereign equality and protesting the rigidity of the international architecture), conservative sovereigntism (seeking to preserve the international architecture by redefining sovereignty on normative grounds), and archeo-sovereigntism (radically opposing the transnational dynamics of globalisation and picturing them as a threat). The encounter of these three incompatible conceptions of sovereignty, it is argued, is a relevant variable for explaining contemporary disorders.

This article analyses the contemporary re-emergence of various and complex political claims founded on sovereignty ("sovereigntism"). After discussing five historical stages in the evolution of sovereigntism, it highlights three structuring features of the post-bipolar international system namely, a growing discrepancy between the affirmation of sovereign equality as a norm and its flawed empirical reality, the perpetuation of an institutionalised hierarchy that no longer reflects the international distribution of power, and the disruption provoked by globalisation, which enables marginalised actors to voice their concerns while provoking resistances on the part of others who feel threatened in their status and identity. Three distinct conceptions of sovereigntism coexist as a result of these three structuring features: 'neo-sovereigntism' (claiming the implementation of sovereign equality and protesting the rigidity of the international architecture), conservative sovereigntism (seeking to preserve the international architecture by redefining sovereignty on normative grounds), and archeo-sovereigntism (radically opposing the transnational dynamics of globalisation and picturing them as a threat). The encounter of these three incompatible conceptions of sovereignty, it is argued, is a relevant variable for explaining contemporary disorders.

This article analyses the contemporary re-emergence of various and complex political claims founded on sovereignty ("sovereigntism"). After discussing five historical stages in the evolution of sovereigntism, it highlights three structuring features of the post-bipolar international system namely, a growing discrepancy between the affirmation of sovereign equality as a norm and its flawed empirical reality, the perpetuation of an institutionalised hierarchy that no longer reflects the international distribution of power, and the disruption provoked by globalisation, which enables marginalised actors to voice their concerns while provoking resistances on the part of others who feel threatened in their status and identity. Three distinct conceptions of sovereigntism coexist as a result of these three structuring features: 'neo-sovereigntism' (claiming the implementation of sovereign equality and protesting the rigidity of the international architecture), conservative sovereigntism (seeking to preserve the international architecture by redefining sovereignty on normative grounds), and archeo-sovereigntism (radically opposing the transnational dynamics of globalisation and picturing them as a threat). The encounter of these three incompatible conceptions of sovereignty, it is argued, is a relevant variable for explaining contemporary disorders.

Kant's primary concern in writing on international relations is how to achieve 'justice' ( Recht) between states. This means that instead of reading Kant as a theorist of peace or world government, as IR theorists have usually done, he is better read as a theorist international justice. His view of justice, which identifies it with a legal order that respects freedom as independence or nondomination, is broadly republican. But he equivocates on the possibility of justice at the international level, and this narrows what is usually seen as a wide gap between Kant's thought and political realism. The paradox his uncertainty reveals is that it is wrong for states to remain in a lawless condition yet impossible for them to escape it so long as they remain independent. An international order cannot generate genuine law because there are no institutions to make, interpret, or enforce it. This means that states are entitled to determine their own foreign affairs. The gap between sovereignty and justice cannot be closed so long as these ideas are defined as they are within the state. The problem is not that a full, secure, and nonvoluntary system of justice that preserves the sovereignty of states is contingently unlikely. It is conceptually impossible. This conclusion poses a challenge to current theories of global justice.

Abstract
International organisations are inherently purposive actors within the international legal system, created and empowered by States to pursue finite common objectives. This teleological dimension has come to play a prominent role in the way in which international law rationalises international organisations, with their purposes given a significant, often determinative, role in delimiting their competences. This article argues that this is the product of a conscious shift in legal reasoning that took place in the aftermath of World War II. Through an analysis of a series of key post-War decisions, it identifies the common features of this 'teleological turn' and, disentangling it from other forms of legal reasoning, examines its unique underlying logic and normative claims. It demonstrates that while the teleological turn offers prospects for the systemic development of international governance, an increasingly abstract approach to the concept and identification of an organisation's 'purpose' raises a number of unresolved questions which cast a shadow of indeterminacy over the law of international organisations.

ABSTRACT
The past decade has witnessed the creation of a new international tax regime. The original international tax regime was created a century ago by the League of Nations. Until the 1980s, it functioned reasonably well and prevented most instances of double taxation and double non-taxation by allocating cross-border income between home and host jurisdictions based on a compromise reached in 1923. However, since the advent of globalization in the 1980s and digitalization in the 1990s, the original international tax regime ceased to function as intended. The main problems were the increased mobility of capital related to increased intangibility and digitalization, together with a relaxation of capital controls and increased tax competition. These developments posed a problem for countries that wished to leave their borders open to reap the benefits of globalization and to engage in tax competition to attract investment. The outcome was a significant fall in tax revenues that threatened the social safety net of the modern welfare state. The trilemma of open borders, tax competition, and satisfying voters' demand for social insurance culminated in the financial crisis of 2008–09, where many countries were forced to implement austerity measures at the same time that parliamentary hearings, leaks, and media reports revealed that rich individuals and large corporations were paying very little tax on cross-border income. The results over the past decade have been the creation of a new international tax regime designed to curb both tax evasion by the rich and tax competition among countries seeking to attract business activity within their borders by granting various preferential tax provisions to multinational enterprises. The key question going forward is how the new international tax regime will deal with international (in)equity, i.e. the economic digital divide. In what follows, I will first discuss the decline of the original international tax regime from 1980 to 2009, then the creation of the new international tax regime from 2010 on, and finally the implications of the new international tax regime for the economic digital divide.

Der Beitrag untersucht die afrikanisch-brasilianischen Beziehungen vor dem Hintergrund der These, dass sich die Rassenbeziehungen in Brasilien auf die Außenpolitik des Landes gegenüber den afrikanischen Staaten auswirken. Es gibt in Brasilien ein starkes Interesse an Afrika. So wurde der Apartheid-Frage bis zu ihrer Lösung große Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Bei aller Exotik, die Afrika für Brasilien hat, behauptet die Politik, sie knüpfe an die historischen und kulturellen Beziehungen, z.B. mit Nigeria und Angola an. (DÜI-Sbd)