Suchergebnisse

Despite decades of effort, the international community has stumbled in attempts to craft tort remedies for victims of transboundary environmental damage. More than a dozen civil liability treaties have been negotiated that create causes of action and prescribe liability rules, but few have entered into force, and most remain unadapted orphans in international environmental law. In this Article, I explain the problematic record of tort liability regimes by developing a theoretical model of liability negotiations grounded in regime theory from political science. Based on this model, I conclude that negotiated liability regimes have foundered because of three main roadblocks: ( 1) interest conflicts between developed and developing states; (2) high transaction costs and low expected payoffs; and (3) incorporation of treaty provisions that are too onerous for states to accept. I conclude that strengthening tort remedies will require changing the substantive content of liability treaties and the process of negotiating them. I also show how liability principles can be strengthened outside the treaty-making process through diffusion of norms against trans boundary environmental damage.

AMERICAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY BETWEEN 1887 AND 1934 WAS SHAPED IN IMPORTANT WAYS BY THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AS A "SUPPORTER" WITHIN IT. AS BRITAIN'S HEGEMONY DECLINED AND PARTICULARLY AFTER IT JOINED THE UNITED STATES AS A SUPPORTER JUST PRIOR TO WORLD WAR 1, AMERICAN FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY BECAME MORE LIBERAL AND ACTIVE. ONCE BRITAIN WAS TRANSFORMED FROM A SUPPORTER INTO A SPOILER IN THE LATE 1920S, LEAVING THE UNITED STATES AS THE SOLE SUPPORTER WITHIN THE IES, BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY AND AMERICAN POLICY BECAME MORE UNSTABLE AND PROTECTIONIST. DURING THE 1970S, THE UNITED STATES, WEST GERMANY, AND FRANCE ALL EMERGED AS SUPPORTERS WITHIN THE IES, INDICATING THAT A MODERATELY STABLE AND LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY MAY CONTINUE TO EXIST IN THE FUTURE.

National audience ; Over the past two decades, decentralization of governments has become common throughout the world. The education sector is no exception. Countries with diverse economic, spatial, demographic and educational features have implemented significant decentralization reforms. The traditional typology of educational functions, characterized by contrasts between central states federal states has grown enriched with families of newly decentralized educational systems. However, despite the polical popularity of decentralization reforms, neither economic and political theories nor empirical evaluations give consistent grounds for this worldwide trend. Despite an impressive amount of literature, mainly descriptive in nature, theoretical and empirical debate on whether decentralization leads to improved student achievements still lies unresolved. ; Depuis deux décennies, les réformes de décentralisation de l'éducation se sont multipliées sur tous les continents. De nombreux pays, aux caractéristiques économiques, démographiques ou éducatives très diverses, ont mis en oeuvre ces politiques éducatives multiformes. Multiples par nature, elles ont fait exploser l'opposition schématique entre Etats centralisés et Etats fédéraux : la typologie de la répartition des compétences en éducation s'est enrichie de nouvelles familles. Pourtant, l'engouement pour la gouvernance locale ne s'appuie pas sur un corpus théorique solide, pas plus qu'il ne trouve sa légitimité dans la recherche empirique. Le débat sur les conséquences scolaires de la décentralisation de l'éducation n'est, à ce jour, par clos.

National audience ; Over the past two decades, decentralization of governments has become common throughout the world. The education sector is no exception. Countries with diverse economic, spatial, demographic and educational features have implemented significant decentralization reforms. The traditional typology of educational functions, characterized by contrasts between central states federal states has grown enriched with families of newly decentralized educational systems. However, despite the polical popularity of decentralization reforms, neither economic and political theories nor empirical evaluations give consistent grounds for this worldwide trend. Despite an impressive amount of literature, mainly descriptive in nature, theoretical and empirical debate on whether decentralization leads to improved student achievements still lies unresolved. ; Depuis deux décennies, les réformes de décentralisation de l'éducation se sont multipliées sur tous les continents. De nombreux pays, aux caractéristiques économiques, démographiques ou éducatives très diverses, ont mis en oeuvre ces politiques éducatives multiformes. Multiples par nature, elles ont fait exploser l'opposition schématique entre Etats centralisés et Etats fédéraux : la typologie de la répartition des compétences en éducation s'est enrichie de nouvelles familles. Pourtant, l'engouement pour la gouvernance locale ne s'appuie pas sur un corpus théorique solide, pas plus qu'il ne trouve sa légitimité dans la recherche empirique. Le débat sur les conséquences scolaires de la décentralisation de l'éducation n'est, à ce jour, par clos.

RésuméEn tant que garante internationale de la justice sociale, l'OIT se trouve confrontée à une révolution comptable mondiale, parachevée par les normes comptables internationales (IAS‐IFRS). La comptabilité mesurait autrefois l'économie en rapport avec les capacités et les responsabilités des travailleurs et de ceux qui en disposent. C'est aujourd'hui l'exact opposé: les normes IAS‐IFRS ont perdu le sens de la mesure du travail et de l'entreprise en se référant au concept abstrait d'une entité cybernétique capable d'incessantes réorganisations, au prix d'inégalités sans limites. L'auteur en dénonce les incohérences et démontre la nécessité de redonner au travail toute sa valeur comptable.

Drawing on Ireland's experience of transforming law, policy and practice and combining theory with real-life experiences, this compelling book demonstrates how a progressive rights-based approach to child detention can be implemented. The UN Global Study on Children Deprived of Liberty detailed many children's poor experiences in detention, highlighting the urgent need for reform. Applying a child-centred model of detention that fulfils the rights of the child under the five themes of Provision, Protection, Participation, Preparation and Partnership, this original book illustrates how reform can happen. Drawing on Ireland's experience of transforming law, policy and practice and combining theory with real-life experiences, this compelling book demonstrates how children's rights can be implemented in detention. This important case study of reform presents a powerful argument for a progressive, rights-based approach to child detention. Worthy of international application, the book shares practical insights into how theory can be translated into practice

The question of who decides when a state has not met its international responsibilities (and therefore forfeits the right to non-intervention) and what kind of international action should be taken (from limited intervention to full-blown regime change) divides liberal foreign policy thinking. To understand the nature of that division, and what is at stake, this article distinguishes 'neoliberal' from 'liberal internationalist' approaches and locates them in an English School understanding of international society. Where the latter stresses the importance of observing the procedural norms centred on the United Nations, the former contests the legitimacy of such norms if they fail to deliver substantive liberal outcomes. The article then interprets British foreign policy discourse either side of the 2003 Iraq conflict through the prism of this debate. The central claim is that a more cautious approach to the use of force and American unilateralism has not silenced the critique of the UN system and that the international reaction to the Libyan intervention prompts the kind of reflection that continues to separate neoliberal from liberal internationalist approaches. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

Differences between American and European conceptions of a rule-governed international order can be observed via an examination of the legal regimes governing the conduct of American and British troops in Iraq. In principle, the US military authorities recognise the authority of international humanitarian law with respect to, for example, the treatment of prisoners and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, but in other respects they are able to prosecute the war against the insurgency in a conventional way. British troops, on the other hand, are obliged to act in accordance with a much more restrictive legal regime, based on changes introduced subsequent to Britain's membership of the International Criminal Court. Under this regime, British military forces in Basra are subject to much the same kind of rules concerning the use of force that govern the operation of civilian police forces in Western Europe. This 'European' attempt to control the way in which force is used is widely seen as a positive move in the direction of minimising the role of force in international relations – but such a judgement is questionable since there may well be circumstances where the effective use of force is both necessary and justified.

AbstractOn May 30, 2023, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) co‐sponsored an international symposium to explore the subject of family court reform. Twenty‐eight judges representing eight countries and including numerous North American states and provinces met in Los Angeles, California, to identify the most pressing challenges facing family courts and to document promising approaches to improve practice and outcomes in family court cases. They focused on domestic relations cases, as opposed to child welfare and juvenile justice matters. Prior to the symposium, participants responded to a survey about family court reform efforts in each participant's jurisdiction. Judicial officers attending the symposium represented diverse legal systems with some common and many different practices and challenges. After a day filled with small and large group discussions, participants identified key takeaways and made recommendations emanating from the day's discussions.

AbstractGovernments spend hundreds of millions on evaluations to assess the performance of public organizations. In this article, we scrutinize whether variation in the institutional design of evaluation systems leads to biases in evaluation findings. Biases may emerge because influence over evaluation processes could enable the bureaucracy to present its work in a more positive way. We study evaluation reports published by nine international organizations (IOs) of the United Nations system. We use deep learning to measure the share of positive assessments at the sentence level per evaluation report as a proxy for the positivity of evaluation results. Analyzing 1082 evaluation reports, we find that reports commissioned by operative units, as compared to central evaluation units, systematically contain more positive assessments. Theoretically, this link between institutional design choices and evaluation outcomes may explain why policymakers perceive similar tools for evidence‐based policymaking as functional in some organizations, and politicized in others.

Abstract
Non-international armed conflict between States and organised armed groups is a reality of warfare. Since the emergence of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, this form of conflict has been regulated by international humanitarian law. However, a subset of this category known as 'transnational armed conflict' has seen aggressive proliferation over recent decades as groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have taken advantage of the internet and other technologies to expand their reach beyond national frontiers and strike States around the world. This phenomenon has left the geographical extent of international humanitarian law – which has historically relied on State boundaries to determine its ambit – unclear. This article examines the main options for delimiting the geographical reach of the regime in transnational armed conflict. It considers approaches based on international boundaries; 'hot battlefields'; 'global application' and 'territorial control' before ultimately concluding that a method based on 'military presence' would be the most suitable standard.