Suchergebnisse

Doomsdays preachers suggested that Brexit and Trump would mean the end of the liberal world order as we know it and thus the end of the EU. The research presented here suggests the opposite. Not only have Europeans turned their back to populism by voting yes to reforms and pro-EU-parties and governments in different member states over the past months, but Brexit and Trump also seems to have given a complete new momentum to the European project. This article demonstrates why Brexit cannot be generalized to the rest of the continent but is the result of a complicated and special British conception of what it means to be a sovereign state in the 21st century. Moreover and paradoxically, surveys show that the greatest fear among Europeans today is not more European integration but right wing populism and European Disunion.

"In recent years, sociology in Britain -and in national contexts influenced by British sociology- has been diagnosed by various parties as suffering from a wide range of ailments. These forms of selfcriticism become ever more acute in terms of their potential effects as huge transformations in university funding regimes are brought to bear on the social sciences. But none of these critiques engages satisfactorily with what is a much more foundational and serious set of problems, namely the very nature of sociology itself as a historically-situated form of knowledge production. Sociology claims to know the world around it, but in Britain today much sociology seriously fails in this regard, because it operates with radically curtailed understandings of the long-term historical forces which made the social conditions it purports to analyse. A sophisticated understanding of the contemporary world is made possible only by an equally sophisticated understanding of very long-term historical processes, precisely the sort of vision that mainstream British sociology has lacked for at least the last two decades. This paper identifies the reasons for the development of this situation and the consequences it has for the nature of sociology's knowledge production, for its self-understanding, for its claims to comprehend the contemporary world, and for its apparent social "usefulness". A markedly more selfaware and historically-sensitive sociology is proposed as the answer to the pressing question of what aspects of sociology should be defended in the turbulent context of British higher education today." (author's abstract)

The text deals with question of European state formation in research of contemporary British sociologist Perry Anderson . Its first intention focus on how modern European medieval and absolutistic states emerged. The article consists from four main parts: (1) Introduction to theory of state-formation. (2) Analysis of structural and analytical connections between state and society in author´s treatise. (3) Third main part deals with analysis of course of European state-building. On this problem we apply specific analytical model, which distinguish causes, components, progression, and impacts on state formation processes. In this case, author analyzes mechanisms of state building in feudal period 9–15th century and period of absolutistic states (16--19th century). (4) Last part is focuses on conclusion of our findings, especially on drawings specific conceptual model of this process. ; The text deals with question of European state formation in research of contemporary British sociologist Perry Anderson . Its first intention focus on how modern European medieval and absolutistic states emerged. The article consists from four main parts: (1) Introduction to theory of state-formation. (2) Analysis of structural and analytical connections between state and society in author´s treatise. (3) Third main part deals with analysis of course of European state-building. On this problem we apply specific analytical model, which distinguish causes, components, progression, and impacts on state formation processes. In this case, author analyzes mechanisms of state building in feudal period 9–15th century and period of absolutistic states (16--19th century). (4) Last part is focuses on conclusion of our findings, especially on drawings specific conceptual model of this process.

De nære relationer mellem USA og Europa har i årtier været et centralt element i international politik. Men hvor kommer det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed og modstandskraft fra? Dette spørgsmål optager mange forskere og aktualiseres nu af de igangværende forskydninger i verdenspolitikken. Bogessayet diskuterer derfor, hvordan de to bøger Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) og Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) fremmer vores viden om de bånd, der knytter staterne i det nordatlantiske område. Haugevik undersøger bilaterale amerikansk-britiske og britisk-norske 'specielle forhold', mens Sayle ser nærmere på det multilaterale samarbejde i NATO. De tilbyder begge interessante teoretiske argumenter om samspillet mellem diplomatisk praksis og nationale politiske dynamikker samt imponerende empiriske analyser, som underbygger deres pointer. De to bøger rejser samtidig også nye vigtige spørgsmål, herunder om de indbyggede spændinger i liberale normer og værdier samt om betydningen af tillid for det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed.
Abstract in English: Something Special? The Transatlantic Ties and Their EnduranceFor several decades, the close relationship between the United States and Europe has been a key aspect of international politics. But what are the sources of the endurance and resilience of transatlantic ties? This question preoccupies researchers, and its salience is growing in light of current shifts in world politics. Accordingly, the book essay discusses how the two books Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) and Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) contribute to our knowledge about the international ties of the North Atlantic area. Haugevik examines bilateral American-British and British-Norwegian 'special relationships', while Sayles studies multilateral cooperation in NATO. They both offer interesting theoretical arguments about the interplay between diplomatic practice and national political dynamics. Moreover, they provide impressive empirical analyses to support their claims. At the same time, the two books raise new important questions, e.g. about the built-in tensions in liberal norms and values as well as about the significance of trust for enduring transatlantic ties.

"This study deals with historic cultural contacts between Europeans and the Benin Empire, one of the most significant native African cultural centres between the 15th and the 17th century. The study focuses particularly on the development of the Benin Empire on the background of acculturation and diffusion of European cultural elements and complexes. The study describes the first contacts between Europeans and the Benin Empire and the subsequent business activities, including slave trade. Special attention is paid to European colonial expansion that culminated in the 1897 British invasion which led to the conquest of the Benin City. The aim of the study is to draw attention to the role of the exogenous cultural change and acculturation processes, which caused the fall of once a socially, economically, politically and culturally stable African empire." (author's abstract)

ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1405.

ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1431.

This paper deals with the issue of building Wales as a unique region in the context of the European Union and its resources. The author focuses on the period after 1999, i.e. the time when devolution took place and when official Welsh representatives emerged via the National Assembly for Wales (NAW). Since then, Wales has entered into cooperation with the EU, in order to gain access to resources provided by the Union. The cooperation is however of a specific kind, since officially, Welsh representatives have to communicate with the EU through the political representation of Great Britain. Nevertheless, by acting informally, Welsh representatives manage to avoid the British government in relevant contexts and communicate with the EU directly. In this way, they are able to exploit the formal and informal rules for their advantage (i.e. for building Wales as a unique region). The main purpose of this text is to show that the case of Wales can be replicated by any region that has official political representation, even if it has only weak representative institutions and has to deal with limitations posed by the existence of a central government.

Due to the different and mutually incompatible interpretations of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, there is still an ongoing dispute between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain on the question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. In the United Kingdom's view, which is largely shared by legal scholars, Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht grants full and entire sovereignty over Gibraltar to the UK. Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Spain argues that Article X yielded to the crown of Great Britain only the property of Gibraltar's castle, town and port. Sovereignty over Gibraltar, however, continued to be retained by the Spanish state. In spite of their disagreement, both states started negotiating a form of condominium at the beginning of the 21st century. In the end, they failed to achieve this goal, which seems to be incompatible with the UN General Assembly resolutions on the decolonization of Gibraltar. The people of Gibraltar, who are the third actor in the Spanish-British dispute, claim their own sovereignty and their right to self-determination. However, according to the UN General Assembly, the decolonization of Gibraltar requires as a precondition that the Kingdom of Spain and the UK solve their dispute on the question of sovereignty. Otherwise the decolonization of Gibraltar cannot occur. Both the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain are European Union members but their inter-state dispute under international law cannot be solved within the EU context. Thus, three hundred years after the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht, the future of Gibraltar remains completely unclear. Adapted from the source document.

Norsk diplomati har mange hverdagshelter, men få som er helter i den forstand at de har skapt noe unikt. Artikkelen diskuterer kandidat nummer en til rollen, Fridtjof Nansen. Nansens diplomatiske virksomhet var mangslungen og inkluderte vitenskapsdiplomati, sportsdiplomati, bakkanaler mellom tredjeparter og oppdrag for den norske stat og internasjonale organisasjoner. Ikke mindre enn fire av hans bidrag er unike. Det første er hans utvidelse av Norges utenrikspolitiske spillerom ved å få en engelsk-gift konge på Norges trone i 1905. Det andre er hans ferdigforhandling av stormaktenes sikkerhetsgaranti til Norge i 1907, som norsk minister til London. Den tredje er ferdigforhandlingen av forsyningsavtalen med amerikanerne i 1918. Det fjerde er hans innsats for hundretusener av flyktninger på 1920-tallet, da særlig det strukturelle grepet med å gjøre dem til juridiske subjekter ved å utstyre dem med såkalt Nansen-pass. For dette arbeidet fikk Nansen også Nobels fredspris for nøyaktig 100 år siden. Nansens svakhet som diplomat var den massive selvsentrertheten og egenrådigheten som gjorde ham til en problematisk representant for et kollektiv som den norske stat. Svakheten ble mer enn veiet opp av Nansens virtuose håndtering av diplomatiets to andre kjerneoppgaver, informasjonssanking og forhandling, som alle hans fire unike innsatser bygger på.
Abstract in EnglishThe Diplomat as Hero: Fridtjof NansenNorwegian diplomacy has seen many everyday heroes, but few who have done something unique. The article discusses the main candidate for the role, Fridtjof Nansen. Nansen carried out a number of different diplomatic functions at the behest of the Norwegian state and International Organisations, no less than four of which were unique. He increased Norway's room for manoeuvre by contributing to placing a Danish king with a British-born wife on the throne upon the country's independence in 1905. He then successfully negotiated a Great Power-guaranteed Integrity Treaty for the new state. Nansen also secured a treaty on vital goods delivery with the United States for Norway in 1918. Most famously, in the1920s, he helped hundreds of thousands of refugees with disaster relief, but also by manipulating structural preconditions so that they received identity papers and could cross borders, for which he received the 1922 Nobel Peace prize. Nansen's weakness as a diplomat was his egocentrism, complete with a programmatic aversion against seeing his specific mission as part of a united foreign policy orchestrated elsewhere. He more than made up for this by his expert handling of diplomacy's other two basic functions, information gathering and negotiation, which underlay all his four unique successes.