Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- About the Editors and Contributors -- 1 Introduction -- 2 National Identity and National Self-Determination -- 3 What Place for Nationalism in the Modern World? -- 4 What Is Nationality, and Is There a Moral Right to National Self-Determination? -- 5 The Skeleton in the Cupboard: Nationhood, Patriotism and Limited Loyalties -- 6 Reconstructing the Landscape of Imagination -- 7 National Obligations: Political, Cultural or Societal? -- 8 Individuals, Nations and Obligations -- 9 Territorial Justice -- 10 Environmental Rights and National Sovereignty -- 11 Cultural Pluralism, Universal Principles and International Relations Theory -- 12 International Human Rights: Philosophical or Political? -- Index -- About the Book

This article is a discussion of the responsibility shared by individual states and the international community to alleviate the monolithic scourge of hunger. Today more than 852 million people suffer from chronic hunger worldwide, and although the common human right to food has long been recognized, the gap between resolutions to fight hunger and poverty, and the actions actually taken, has grown ever wider. Each year, the volume of resources dedicated to that goal diminishes, while the number and proportion of hungry people continue to rise. One of the main Millennium Development Goals is to halve the proportion of people that suffer from hunger between 1995 and 2015; significant advancement of that goal has yet to occur. For this goal to be achieved, the number of hungry people will have to be reduced by 29 million per year from now until 2015, a figure that is 12 % higher than the current international progress. W. A. Butler

Much of what states do in the international system they do as a response to their perceived obligations, commitments, or responsibilities. Not all of these obligations are owed to the same sort of recipient, however: some may be owed to other identifiable parties with whom one has arrived at a bargain or an exchange of benefits, but obligations may also be owed to a chosen rule of conduct or guide to action, as in the case of deterrence, and to oneself, as in the case of selfpreservation or one's sense of honor. All three types of international obligation have been recognized in international law and practice, but no one of the three categories encompasses all the duties of states. A complete understanding of international relations requires attention to all three parties to which international obligations may be owed.

I. An Overview of the Problem -- II. Obligation of Compliance for Member and Nonmember States under the United Nations Charter -- III. Validity of the General Assembly Resolutions; an Inquiry -- IV. Reservations as Devices for Avoiding International Obligations -- V. Illustrations of Failure of Domestic Jurisdiction to Prevent an Increase in Obligations -- VI. Direct Intervention in Domestic Affairs by the United Nations -- VII. State Actions when Reliance on Reservations Fails -- VIII. The Middle East Case -- IX. The Cases of Indonesia, France and Cuba -- X. The Case of the People's Republic of China -- XI. Appraisal.

Examines perceived commitments or responsibilities of states in cases of deterrence, self-preservation, or to uphold one's sense of honor.