Suchergebnisse

Klappentext: Over the last decades, shipping, fisheries and other uses of the oceans have considerably increased. However, adverse impacts caused by man have also been threatening the marine environment and the living resources of the sea. Hence the various international maritime organisations involved in managing the oceans are facing new challenges which in particular may be met by the concept of sustainability. How they cope with the present and future needs is shown in this book compiling information about some of the most relevant organisations in light of a sustainable marine development.

Preliminary Material /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- General Introduction /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- United Nations /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- UNESCO /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Community of Democracies /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Inter-Parliamentary Union /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Introduction /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- The Commonwealth /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Africa /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- The Americas /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Arab Region and Asia /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Europe /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter -- Introduction /Frithjof Ehm and Christian Walter.

This article analyzes implementation processes at the national & subnational level in Russia. It provides empirical evidence on fisheries management, nuclear safety, & air pollution control issues in the country's northwestern region. The authors briefly outline the problems, implementation performance, & target compliance. Agencies given the most attention & related political cleavages are tabulated. The authors conclude that while the general climate surrounding the protection of the environment & natural resources is not very promising in Russia, the case studies revealed patterns of governance offering hope such as the established "capacity to govern" often overlooked by Westerners. In all three cases, regional authorities have taken on themselves a coordinating role that has had a positive effect on implementation performance. 2 Tables, 1 Figure. E. Sanchez

This article investigates the recent 'New Materialisms' turn in social and political thought and asks what the potential theoretical and methodological significance might be for the study of International Relations (IR). To do so we return to debates about the theoretical status of discourse in IR as it is in this context that the question of materiality - particularly as it relates to language - has featured prominently in recent years. While the concept of discourse is increasingly narrow in IR, the 'New Materialisms' literature emphasises the political force of materiality beyond language and representation. However, a move to reprioritise the politics of materiality over that of language and representation is equally problematic since it perpetuates rather than challenges the notion of a prior distinction between language and materiality. In response, we draw on earlier poststructural thought in order to displace this dichotomy and articulate an extended understanding of what analysing 'discourse' might mean in the study of IR. Adapted from the source document.

The EU's practice in signing and concluding "mixed agreements" alongside its member States – all 29 legal subjects thus being parties to such agreements and accordingly each bound with one or several third parties – was not, and is still not, being properly considered by the rules of international law. Nevertheless, this practice exists and a huge number of third States have accepted it through conclusion of those "mixed agreements". As long as a member State of the EU remains a member State, the problem may adequately be solved by the EU law which establishes a very clear hierarchical relationship between different kinds of legal norms within the EU's legal order. EU mixed agreements are thus considered as being some kind of secondary legislation binding upon its institutions and member States (article 216(2) TFEU). However, when a member State is leaving the EU, as it is the case of the UK, the relationship between the EU and the UK as well as with third States parties to mixed agreements will solely be covered by rules of general international law. This complex situation is envisaged in this paper through the case-study of the EEA agreement. ; La pratique de l'UE consistant à signer et à conclure des « accords mixtes » aux côtés de ses États membres – les 29 sujets juridiques étant ainsi parties à ces accords et donc chacun lié à un ou plusieurs États tiers – n'as pas été et n'est toujours pas dûment prise en compte par les règles du droit international. Néanmoins, cette pratique existe et un très grand nombre d'États tiers l'ont acceptée par la conclusion de ces « accords mixtes ». Tant qu'un État membre de l'Union européenne reste un État membre, le problème peut être résolu par le droit de l'UE qui établit une hiérarchie très claire entre différents types de normes juridiques au sein de l'ordre juridique de l'UE. Les accords mixtes de l'UE sont donc considérés comme faisant partie du droit dérivé obligatoire pour ses institutions et ses États membres (article 216 par. 2 du TFUE). Toutefois, lorsqu'un État membre quitte l'UE, comme c'est le cas du Royaume-Uni, les relations entre l'UE et le Royaume-Uni ainsi qu'avec les États tiers parties à des accords mixtes seront uniquement régies par les règles du droit international général. Dans ce papier, nous analysons cette complexe question juridique à travers l'exemple de l'accord sur l'EEE.

This article engages genealogy as a form of critique in International Relations. It demonstrates that Foucault's genealogy has had an important, albeit hitherto unexamined, impact on how critique is understood in post-structuralist International Relations. Specifically, the article argues that a genealogical disposition tends to inscribe violence as foundational to the human condition, and genealogically informed empirical applications in International Relations risk reproducing this gesture. In the first part, the article returns to the first generation of post-structuralist International Relations and also examines examples of contemporary scholarship using frameworks of governmentality and biopolitics. The second part of the article traces the problem of ontologically inscribing violence back to Foucault's genealogical phase. Drawing on the work of John Milbank, the article then contrasts a genealogical ontology of violence with one that refuses violence as foundational. The article ends by arguing that empirical scholarship drawing on governmentality and biopolitics should be careful not to read the genealogical ontology of violence into their analyses of global political life.