Suchergebnisse

"Ten years ago, in the wake of massive crimes in central Africa and the Balkans, the first permanent international criminal court was established in The Hague despite resistance from some of the world's most powerful states. In the past decade, the court has grown from a few staff in an empty building to a bustling institution with more than a thousand lawyers, investigators, and administrators from around the world. Despite its growth and the backing of more than 120 nations, the ICC is still struggling to assert itself in often turbulent political crises. The ICC is generally autonomous in its ability to select cases and investigate crimes, but it is ultimately dependent on sovereign states, and particularly on the world's leading powers. These states can provide the diplomatic, economic, and military clout the court often needs to get cooperation-and to arrest suspects. But states don't expend precious political capital lightly, and the court has often struggled to get the help it needs. When their interests are most affected, moreover, powerful states usually want the court to keep its distance. Directly and indirectly, they make their preferences known in The Hague. Rough Justice grapples with the court's basic dilemma: designed to be apolitical, it requires the support of politicians who pursue national interests and answer to domestic audiences. Through a sharp analysis of the dynamics at work behind the scenes, Bosco assesses the ways in which powerful states have shaped the court's effort to transform the vision of international justice into reality. This will be the definitive account of the Court and its uneven progress toward advancing accountability around the world"--

This article revisits the possibilities of the good international citizen (GIC) as a civilising agent in international society. It argues that an underdeveloped resource for thinking about state responsibilities as GIC is the idea of cosmopolitan extraterritoriality (ET) in relation to human rights. ET, the assertion of jurisdiction beyond territorial borders, has long been associated with statist and nationalist purposes; however, a significant cosmopolitan, and civilising, potential can be found within practices of ET in relation to human rights and certain aspects of criminal law such as in the practices of child sex tourism and trafficking. This form of ET allows states to restrain their own citizens abroad and potentially restrain their own foreign policies and practices by accepting limits on their freedom of action derived from respect for human rights and respect for the rule of law.

The theory that a liberal international economic structure is associated positively, and a mercantilist structure negatively, with international security is widespread. But the case in favor of liberalism, and the case against mercantilism, are both one-sided, and the whole attempt to link economic structure to international security anyway overestimates the influence that economic structure has on the use of force. Political and military factors provide explanations more convincing than economic ones for the propensity of states to resort to, or refrain from, the use of force. Liberal and mercantilist structures each have both positive and negative impacts on the use of force, but these impacts become important only when they are complemented by noneconomic factors governing the use of force. Hence security grounds cannot be used convincingly either as a reason for maintaining the current liberal system or as a reason for opposing a shift toward a more mercantilist structure of international economic relations.

"State Responsibility for the Support of Armed Groups in the Commission of International Crimes examines the law on attribution of conduct of individuals to states. Under established principles of international law, State responsibility only arises where armed groups act under the direction or control of the State, or are completely dependent on the State. These tests are under inclusive as they do not consider the different ways states can exert control over armed groups in the commission of international crimes. Ramsundar presents an interesting examination into the possibility of liberalization of the rules of State responsibility. The examination considers subtle ways states can exert control over armed groups in the commission of international crimes. Her proposal presents a compelling argument for widening the scope of responsibility to states through useful modifications to interpretation of the tests of control and dependence"--

The Kurds in Iraq have always been suppressed by the governments ruling the country and have been through many hard stages over the past century. They have struggled for a state of their own but never fulfilled that dream. Kurds have experienced autonomous and independent states, but these did not survive. In the Treaty of Sevres (1920), they had the right to self-determination, with independent statehood, but the treaty was never ratified. It was eventually replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which made no mention of Kurdish statehood. Upon the invasion of U.S.-led forces into Iraq in 2003, the world turned its attention to the Middle East, and especially to the north of Iraq, Kurdistan. This region has been controlled by Kurds since the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces in 1991. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, there is a great opportunity to achieve their goal. Kurdish Parties have established the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and the world has recognized it as a de facto state. To be a new nation-state in the international community and recognized as a de jure state under international law, it must meet various qualifications, some of which have already been satisfied by the KRG. Adapted from the source document.

There's always been two histories to tell about International Relations. One that explains structures and processes and another that understands individual and collective actions. But the first one has always been predominant in our discipline, forgetting what International Relations truly means for the states and for global political actors. ; Siempre habrá dos historias que contar de las relaciones internacionales. Una que explique estructuras y procesos, y otra que comprenda las acciones de los individuos y de los agregados sociales. Pero siempre ha sido la primera de estas historias la que ha dominado la disciplina, olvidando los significados que las relaciones internacionales tienen para los Estados y para otros actores de la política mundial.