Suchergebnisse

Is there an intersection between the application of Public International Law with the political conduction of international relations? Should International Law, International Order and International Rules be redefined? How can such an intersection be found? The investigation seeks to extrapolate new definitions and an International Law axiom by utilizing sundry approaches to the state of the question which is properly laid out as well as some terms defined previous to the discussion by utilizing "approaches." The investigation is carried out by using the Cartesian method or that of Descartes and followers and the formal and material logical structures. Eventually new definitions and an axiom by extrapolating analyses categories are laid out. Hence, approaches such as the "legalistic" one, the "natural law" one, the "religious," the "extra-legal" one, the "eclectic" one, the "effective" one and the "UN proposed" one are analyzed in-depth upon observing the experience and current factual situation even though noting that those approaches are neither mutually exclusive nor "pure," but representative as the examples supporting them show. The paper's bottom line is no other than zeroing in on one of the oldest of International Law's wounds: That of its effectiveness. But by pointing out various moot points and by reflecting on the different reality stages, one can conclude that the material mission of the law as well as the aims of international order are eventually attained. Nonetheless in concluding and setting out the axioms and new definitions, the existing political power within a democratic framework should not be overlooked as the praxis of International Law meets that of international power to form then a juxtaposition. So, regardless of some international instruments being deemed as substantial law, one has to ask whether what the international community calls "breaking of law," is rather a breaking of procedures or adjective mandates. ; ¿Existe un punto de equilibrio o balance entre lo que es la aplicación del derecho internacional público y el manejo político de las relaciones internacionales? ¿Deben los conceptos de Derecho Internacional, Orden Internacional y Reglas Internacionales ser redefinidos? ¿Cómo se puede encontrar un punto de equilibrio? Esta investigación busca la extrapolación de nuevas definiciones y de un axioma de Derecho Internacional utilizando para ello varias aproximaciones al estado de la cuestión que es presentada así como términos previamente definidos en forma anterior al inicio de la discusión que utiliza las denominadas "aproximaciones." La investigación se lleva a cabo usando el método cartesiano y las estructuras de la lógica formal y material. Al final, nuevas definiciones y un axioma son presentadas usando para ello distintas categorías de análisis. Así, "aproximaciones" como la "religiosa o teocrática," o la "extra-legal," o la "legalista," o la "efectiva," o la del "derecho natural," la "ecléctica," la del "deber ser" y finalmente la "efectiva" son analizadas en profundidad a través de la observación de la experiencia y la situación actual, aun cuando haciendo notar que dichas aproximaciones no son mutuamente excluyentes, no tampoco "puras," pero sí representativas como los ejemplos que las soportan muestran. La idea subyacente de la investigación no es otra que centrarse en uno de los temas más importantes del derecho internacional: su efectividad. Pero al señalar varios puntos de discusión y a través de la reflexión de los diferentes escenarios reales, se puede concluir que la misión material del derecho internacional al final se cumple. No obstante, al concluir y al trazar el axioma y nuevas definiciones, no puede olvidarse el poder político existente dentro de un marco democrático por cuanto la praxis del derecho internacional se encuentra con la del poder internacional para formar una intersección. De tal manera, que independientemente de que algunos instrumentos internacionales se tengan como norma sustantiva, debe preguntarse uno si lo que la comunidad internacional llama "violación del derecho" no es una pero de meras reglas adjetivas.

Is there an intersection between the application of Public International Law with the political conduction of international relations? Should International Law, International Order and International Rules be redefined? How can such an intersection be found? The investigation seeks to extrapolate new definitions and an International Law axiom by utilizing sundry approaches to the state of the question which is properly laid out as well as some terms defined previous to the discussion by utilizing "approaches." The investigation is carried out by using the Cartesian method or that of Descartes and followers and the formal and material logical structures. Eventually new definitions and an axiom by extrapolating analyses categories are laid out. Hence, approaches such as the "legalistic" one, the "natural law" one, the "religious," the "extra-legal" one, the "eclectic" one, the "effective" one and the "UN proposed" one are analyzed in-depth upon observing the experience and current factual situation even though noting that those approaches are neither mutually exclusive nor "pure," but representative as the examples supporting them show. The paper's bottom line is no other than zeroing in on one of the oldest of International Law's wounds: That of its effectiveness. But by pointing out various moot points and by reflecting on the different reality stages, one can conclude that the material mission of the law as well as the aims of international order are eventually attained. Nonetheless in concluding and setting out the axioms and new definitions, the existing political power within a democratic framework should not be overlooked as the praxis of International Law meets that of international power to form then a juxtaposition. So, regardless of some international instruments being deemed as substantial law, one has to ask whether what the international community calls "breaking of law," is rather a breaking of procedures or adjective mandates. ; ¿Existe un punto de equilibrio o balance entre lo que es la aplicación del derecho internacional público y el manejo político de las relaciones internacionales? ¿Deben los conceptos de Derecho Internacional, Orden Internacional y Reglas Internacionales ser redefinidos? ¿Cómo se puede encontrar un punto de equilibrio? Esta investigación busca la extrapolación de nuevas definiciones y de un axioma de Derecho Internacional utilizando para ello varias aproximaciones al estado de la cuestión que es presentada así como términos previamente definidos en forma anterior al inicio de la discusión que utiliza las denominadas "aproximaciones." La investigación se lleva a cabo usando el método cartesiano y las estructuras de la lógica formal y material. Al final, nuevas definiciones y un axioma son presentadas usando para ello distintas categorías de análisis. Así, "aproximaciones" como la "religiosa o teocrática," o la "extra-legal," o la "legalista," o la "efectiva," o la del "derecho natural," la "ecléctica," la del "deber ser" y finalmente la "efectiva" son analizadas en profundidad a través de la observación de la experiencia y la situación actual, aun cuando haciendo notar que dichas aproximaciones no son mutuamente excluyentes, no tampoco "puras," pero sí representativas como los ejemplos que las soportan muestran. La idea subyacente de la investigación no es otra que centrarse en uno de los temas más importantes del derecho internacional: su efectividad. Pero al señalar varios puntos de discusión y a través de la reflexión de los diferentes escenarios reales, se puede concluir que la misión material del derecho internacional al final se cumple. No obstante, al concluir y al trazar el axioma y nuevas definiciones, no puede olvidarse el poder político existente dentro de un marco democrático por cuanto la praxis del derecho internacional se encuentra con la del poder internacional para formar una intersección. De tal manera, que independientemente de que algunos instrumentos internacionales se tengan como norma sustantiva, debe preguntarse uno si lo que la comunidad internacional llama "violación del derecho" no es una pero de meras reglas adjetivas.

A discussion of the impact of international migration on international relations considers how state actions shape population movements; what causes population movements to result in cooperation or conflicts; & how governments respond to population flows. It is suggested that the response of a state to international migration often affects that state's relations with other countries; a state's exit/entry rules affect international migration; & international migrants often become a political force in their country of destination. The concept of sovereignty as it relates to neoclassical economic ideas is explored to help shed light on how states influence international migration. The most common types of entry/exit rules are described to illustrate how they influence the magnitude, composition, & directionality of international migration, as well as relations between states. Consideration is also given to the political impact of international migrants on migration policies & how notions of sovereignty are being transformed under the new global realities. J. Lindroth

A discussion of the impact of international migration on international relations considers how state actions shape population movements; what causes population movements to result in cooperation or conflicts; & how governments respond to population flows. It is suggested that the response of a state to international migration often affects that state's relations with other countries; a state's exit/entry rules affect international migration; & international migrants often become a political force in their country of destination. The concept of sovereignty as it relates to neoclassical economic ideas is explored to help shed light on how states influence international migration. The most common types of entry/exit rules are described to illustrate how they influence the magnitude, composition, & directionality of international migration, as well as relations between states. Consideration is also given to the political impact of international migrants on migration policies & how notions of sovereignty are being transformed under the new global realities. J. Lindroth

Historians have all but dispensed with a conventional chronology that marks the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) as the origin of a modern state-centric territorial sovereignty. Instead, they are accumulating evidence that, since at least the early nineteenth century, sovereignty stretches back to the imperial practice of intervention into polities elsewhere on humanitarian grounds. Imperial sovereignty was less uniform than imperial officials and cartographers asserted; instead, as Lauren Benton has argued, it was (and is) usually "more myth than reality, more a story that polities [told] about their own power than a definite quality that they possess[ed]". Then there is the increasing number of historical examples of nonnormative, quasi-invisible forms of extra-territoriality that shaped the global imperial political architecture of the late nineteenth century: from the remaining principalities of the Holy Roman empire, and the conceptually distinctive practices of the Habsburgs as they separated cultural sovereignty from political sovereignty within their imperial territory, to the European claims to commercial and municipal authority in the treaty ports that dotted China's seaboard and river system, carving out the spoils of war.

International business has always been intimately linked to the politics of the global economy. Expansion and investment strategies of business play a key role in de?ning the architecture of the global economy. The shifting dynamic of the global economy such as the emergence of fast growing economies in, for example, India, China, South Africa and Brazil can be partly explained by the emergence of new market players such as the India transnational car manufacturer Tata, as well as the adaptation of established international businesses in the West to the new market opportunities in the South and the East. Equally, the recent (and in places ongoing) economic crises of the West owes as much to the failures of international business — notably the banking and investment industry — as it does to the failures of government policy. At the same time the international political dimension to the global economy explains the regulatory forces which also determine the architecture of the global economy. The far reaching policy liberalization of international trade through international (namely the World Trade Organisation) and regional treaties and rule- making, and the global deregulation of the investment and ?nancial services sector of the global economy driven by the neoliberal policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have created economic risks and opportunities for international business by opening up and creating new markets. The strategies of nation states and international business determine the architecture of the global economy and create both economic crises and dynamic growth at one and the same time in the contemporary global economy. So it is that for much of the ?rst decade or so of the new century the West has endured an age of austerity brought on by sustained economic decline and high indebtedness. The once market dominant economies of the United States and West European economies are now struggling to reverse negative economic growth. By contrast large previously peripheral under- developed economies in Africa and Asia are enjoying remarkable and sustained growth rates and their exports and investments now fuel an overall growth in the global economy.

This study is an exploration of the logic of hegemony in one of the most significant policy areas of international relations: international security. I argue that despite huge international opposition during the Court's early years of existence as well as the fact that 3 out of 5 permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members are not Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UNSC decision-making between 2002 and 2010 was framed by the hegemonic Justice discourse. The result of intense lobbying by international criminal law experts, NGO human rights activists, policymakers, journalists, and state representatives acting within the United Nations Security Council, the International Criminal Court Assembly of States Parties and the media, Justice was the new ideology of international security. In order to empirically analyze this process of hegemonization, I developed a hermeneutic conceptual framework based on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's Poststructuralist Discourse Theory (PDT) and an inductive qualitative research strategy that can be applied to concrete international policy discourses. I defined hegemony as a process of hegemonization that takes place under specific historical circumstances in a particular international policy area. In order to reveal its workings I relied on a comprehensive list of PDT concepts operationalized as meso-level Discursive Mechanisms. Through the linking of various political demands, the creation of a collective identity, the gripping of the floating signifiers "Peace", "Security", "Sovereingty", "Protection", "Accountability", and "Rule of Law", and institution of a new political imaginary, Justice became one of the most successful discourses in early 21st century international relations. The new security ideology withstood challenges from three major counterdiscourses: the homegrown American version of "Politicization", the African Union's institutional discourse, and the ongoing normative attack from the loose network of actors defending ...

In this chapter, the author examines the changes made to America's national security strategy in the wake of 9/11. The author argues that the Bush Doctrine has caused more damage to both US & international security than it has to improve these issues. The embrace of preventive war, unilateralism, & militarism has damaged the traditional fabrics of international relations. D. Miller

Founded by Edgar F. Allen in 1922 in Elyria, Ohio as The International Society for Crippled Children, today Rehabilitation International (RI) is a global network promoting and implementing the rights, inclusion and rehabilitation of people with disabilities. From the beginning, the organization dedicated itself to assist disabled people, doing so by providing direct services, by disseminating information, and by influencing political decisionmaking. Uniquely, it has been a cross-disability, cross-disciplinary, and international organization from the start. Further, in its first decade as in its eighth, conceiving and publicizing bills of rights were a key feature of the organization's mission.

Currently, scholars and political leaders are facing various global challenges: failing states, conflicts over distribution, terrorism and the refugee crisis represent only some of them. In this book, acclaimed experts from Germany and abroad offer a panorama of the international security threats of the 21st century. With a particular focus on the role of Germany, these experts present strategic approaches through which these challenges can be tackled in the most effective and sensible way, thus providing new impulses for the security policy debate in Germany.

The 1st and 2nd Additional Protocols introduced a new rule which prohibits attacks against works and installations containing dangerous forces, even if they represent military objectives, because those dangerous forces could have a negative impact on civilians. It is not very sure that these rules became a part of the customary law, but practice shows that states are aware of the considerable risks which would emerge. As a consequence, states recognize that, in any armed conflict, it is necessary to take special precautionsin order to avoid releasing these dangerous forces and not cause any threats among civilians. According to the two protocols, this requirement of taking precautions is applicable to any kind of armed conflict.Keywords: customary international law; international conflicts; noninternational conflicts; Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention.

States address many of today's global problems in international organizations (IOs). At the same time, regional international organizations (RIOs) play important roles in IOs, as a series of case studies suggests. RIO member states can speak on behalf of an RIO in IO negotiations. This paper explores under what conditions states voice RIO positions instead of national ones in IOs and thereby turn into agents of regionalization. Based on a novel dataset of more than 500 international negotiations and a quantitative analysis of theory-guided International Relations hypotheses, this paper shows that states are increasingly likely to negotiate on behalf of an RIO, when they regard grouping positions into regional blocs in IO negotiations as more effective, when they have a formal role as RIO chair, and when they possess financial and staff capacities needed in order to voice a regional position in international negotiations.

International audience ; Opinions tribunals dealing with environmental issues have multiplied over the last several years as a consequence of the rise of international environmental law and its promotion by international networks. Drawing on an ethnographic investigation of one of those tribunals—the International Monsanto Tribunal— this article reflects on the many objectives they often pursue: strengthening political positions, publicizing environmental and health social struggles, and promoting legal theories. In our case, we show that articulating those objectives involved intense work to stage the tribunal's legitimacy. We analyze this work and how it was put to the test during and after the sessions of the tribunal. Our article broadly suggests that environmental opinion tribunals are political arenas where rights and identities are not only asserted but also negotiated and legitimized.

International audience ; Opinions tribunals dealing with environmental issues have multiplied over the last several years as a consequence of the rise of international environmental law and its promotion by international networks. Drawing on an ethnographic investigation of one of those tribunals—the International Monsanto Tribunal— this article reflects on the many objectives they often pursue: strengthening political positions, publicizing environmental and health social struggles, and promoting legal theories. In our case, we show that articulating those objectives involved intense work to stage the tribunal's legitimacy. We analyze this work and how it was put to the test during and after the sessions of the tribunal. Our article broadly suggests that environmental opinion tribunals are political arenas where rights and identities are not only asserted but also negotiated and legitimized.

International audience ; Opinions tribunals dealing with environmental issues have multiplied over the last several years as a consequence of the rise of international environmental law and its promotion by international networks. Drawing on an ethnographic investigation of one of those tribunals—the International Monsanto Tribunal— this article reflects on the many objectives they often pursue: strengthening political positions, publicizing environmental and health social struggles, and promoting legal theories. In our case, we show that articulating those objectives involved intense work to stage the tribunal's legitimacy. We analyze this work and how it was put to the test during and after the sessions of the tribunal. Our article broadly suggests that environmental opinion tribunals are political arenas where rights and identities are not only asserted but also negotiated and legitimized.