Suchergebnisse

This article summarizes the results of a recently completed, comprehensive coding of 779 human rights instruments from 1863 to 2003. As such, it offers an extensive portrayal of how, and to what degree, this powerful doctrine has been formally institutionalized over time. Following a brief overview of the data collection process, selected results from this study are presented that highlight how many human rights instruments have been drafted, what kind of violations have been most prominent, the number of rights that have been specified over time, and the ultimate aspirations that are linked to the realization of human rights. Next, potential applications of this dataset are discussed regarding both human rights and peace research scholarship. Specifically, the results shed new light on the historical development of human rights by highlighting key periods of instrument growth in the late 19th century, the interwar years, and the post-World War II period. In addition, the data can effectively augment recent quantitative studies that measure the effect of treaty ratification on internal state violence by helping to generate more extensive ratification information, develop better measures of state compliance, and construct new measures that assess how human rights principles get translated into national practice and potentially mitigate state violence over time.

"Der Aufsatz geht von der Prämisse aus, dass Globalisierung ein unwahrscheinliches Phänomen ist und fragt, unter welchen historischen Konstellationen diese Unwahrscheinlichkeitsschwelle dennoch überwunden werden konnte. Der Erklärungsgegenstand ist nicht faktische Globalisierung im Sinne einer räumlich verstandenen weltweiten Ausdehnung, sondern die Formation potenziell globaler Vergleichszusammenhänge. Wir beantworten diese Frage am Beispiel von (Natur-)Wissenschaft und Sport. Dazu stellen die Autoren in Abschn. 2 ein allgemeines Erklärungsmodell vor, das sich auf die Entstehungsbedingungen von Globalisierungsdynamiken bezieht. Ausgehend von der Unterscheidung zwischen einer Vernetzungs- und einer Beschreibungsdimension von Globalisierung rückt dieses Modell die Bedeutung öffentlicher Vergleichsdiskurse in den Vordergrund. In Abschn. 3 wenden sie das Erklärungsmodell auf die beiden Fallbeispiele an und zeigen, dass und weshalb der Schwerpunkt der Entstehung potenziell globaler Vergleichszusammenhänge in beiden Feldern im späten 19. Jahrhundert lag. In Abschn. 4 formulieren sie einige Vermutungen darüber, inwieweit sich das Modell auch auf andere Felder übertragen lässt und welches Licht es auf faktische globale Expansionsprozesse wirft." (Autorenreferat)

The global justice movement has often been associated with opposition to the broad programme of 'neoliberalism' and associated patterns of 'corporate globalisation', creating a widespread impression that this movement is opposed to liberalism more broadly conceived. Our goal in this article is to challenge this widespread view. By engaging in critical interpretive analysis of the contemporary 'corporate accountability' movement, we argue that the corporate accountability agenda is not opposed to the core values of a liberal project. Rather, it is seeking to reconfigure the design of liberal institutions of individual rights-protection, adjusting these for new material conditions associated with economic globalisation, under which powerful corporations alongside states now pose direct and significant threats to individual rights. This activist agenda is, therefore, much less radical in its challenge to the prevailing liberal global order than it may initially appear, and since it functions to buttress rather than corrode many core normative commitments underpinning the liberal political project. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThe "globalization of migration" has raised new and important questions about the macrostructural or global determinants of international population movements (Castles and Miller, 2003). Yet there remains a dearth of cross‐national, empirical research in this area (Portes, 1997). In one of the earliest attempts to empirically identify macrostructural determinants of migration, Amankwaa makes an important contribution to the literature (1995). There are, however, some conceptual, analytical, and methodological shortcomings in Amankwaa's analysis of migration. These deficiencies merit comment because Amankwaa's paper could become an increasingly important source of information for public policies and analytical research efforts, particularly as international migration continues to garner increased attention from public policy practitioners and academic researchers. I address key deficiencies in Amankwaa's study and describe a more robust analytical framework and more rigorous methodological techniques for future research inquiries into the relationship between globalization and international migration.