Suchergebnisse

1 Introduction – An Empirical-Normative Turn in Research on Legalization 2 Legalizing International Relations 3 Democratic Participation in International Institutions 4 Legalization, Democracy, and Politics – A Harmonious or Tension-Ridden Relationship? 5 Methodology 6 Biotechnological Patents – Regulation, Interests, and Affectedness 7 Empirical Analysis of Legalization across International Institutions – Selective Expansion with the Handbrake On 8 Empirical Analysis of Democratic Participation in International Institutions – Undemocratic Trends to Different Extents 9 Legalization's (Un)Democratic Forces at Work 10 Conclusion – Laying Down the Law Appendix Bibliography ; A deeper understanding of international legalization's effect on democratic participation in international institutions is urgently needed. Policies that were formerly regulated within the domestic context have been subjected to international law (IL). This has resulted in a growing number of international agreements and bodies. Some of these institutions gained new legal quality in terms of their legal obligations, procedural rules, and dispute settlement. With this trend of growing international legalization, also the normative expectations of IL have increased. In particular the key standard of democratic participation has to be met by international institutions to be considered legitimate in the long run. This crucial relationship between international legalization and democratic participation has been neither systematically theorized nor empirically researched so far. The project forms part of a larger research strand on the interplay between law, politics, and democracy. By introducing a model of legalization's structure-inherent and actor-dependent effects, I demonstrate that legalization's costs cause powerful actors to restrict democratic participation in highly legalized international institutions. Only a formalization of membership rules tends to have a positive impact on democratic access. Biotechnological patents serve as field of ...

A critical intervention in international communications, in which an array of eminent scholars challenge the Western-dominated conceptions of the field

The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors. ; The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors.

The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors. ; The article explores the main mechanisms of the maintenance of international order in a contemporary system of international relations. Within the system of international relations an order status is maintained by mechanisms of two types: organized and elemental. In this context, the mechanisms for maintaining order can be divided according to not only the degree of organization but also the content. From this perspective, the following mechanisms of international order were distinguished: institutional, regulatory-legal, economic, political-military, cultural, ideological and informational. International order is the sum of certain rules and principles established by all countries; those that they observe are built on the interaction of different factors.

First l will explain a brief definition of what is meant by international law, this is the set of judicial and legislative rules whose primary objective is contribute to re|ations between states are as orderly and consistent manner possible to work with the maintenance of solidarity and peace. ; Öncelikle uluslararası hukukun kısa bir açıklamasını yapacağım. Uluslararası hukuk ülkeler arasında dayanışma ve barışı temin edecek amacı düzenli ve tutarlı ilişkiler kurulmasına katkı sağlayacak kanunlar bütünüdür. uluslararası hukuk devletlerin diğer ülkeler ile ve kendi sınırları içinde yaşayan insanlarla ilişkilerindeki yasal sorumluluklarını tanımlar.

In Wegerich, Kai; Warner, J. (Eds.). The politics of water: a survey. London, UK: Routledge

This unit introduces and explores International development by considering the three themes referred to as PASH - Power and agency, Scale and History, and programmes to promote livelihoods.

Envisioning an international public order means envisioning an order sustained by a legal and institutional framework that ensures effective collective action with a view to defending fundamental values of the international community and to solving common global problems, in line with the universalist vision of international law. Envisioning the construction of an international public order means considering that this framework, which embraces and promotes the respect for human rights focused particularly on human dignity, is consolidating and evolving based on the International Criminal Court (ICC). The establishment of the ICC added an international punitive perennial facet to international humanitarian law and international human rights law and linked justice to peace, to security and to the well-being of the world, reaffirming the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Nevertheless, the affirmation process of an international criminal justice by punishing those responsible for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, faces numerous obstacles of political and normative character. This article identifies the central merits of the Rome Statute and ICC's practice and indicates its limitations caused by underlying legal-political tensions and interpretive questions relating to the crime of aggression and crimes against humanity. Finally, the article argues for the indispensability of rethinking the jurisdiction of the ICC, defending the categorization of terrorism as an international crime, and of articulating its mission with the "responsibility to protect", which may contribute to the consolidation of the ICC and of international criminal law and reinforce its role in the construction of an effective international public order.

The key to understanding the construction of deviance in international relations is to understand the interplay between international norms, international law, and the systemic hegemon. This paper argues that the hegemonic power of the international system is central in the creation of the international normative order. Pointing out that deviance is thus an exercise in the maintenance of stability within the normative order, in which the hegemon seeks to maintain both legitimacy and compliance. Anchoring the norms which are supposedly violated by the 'rogue' in international law gives hegemon's actions legitimacy and universality, supporting the hegemon's position, but also restraining it simultaneously. This paper demonstrates this model using the probability probe of Iran's nuclear program, where Iran's image as a 'rogue' arose not because of the country's human rights record, but as a result of Iran's behavior within the non-proliferation regime.

Defence date: 9 June 2014 ; Examining Board: Professor Martin Scheinin, EUI (Supervisor) Professor Nehal Bhuta, EUI Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University, London Judge Christine Baroness Van den Wyngaert, International Criminal Court. ; This PhD thesis was awarded the Cappelletti Prize. ; Complicity is a criminal law doctrine that attributes responsibility to those who do not physically perpetrate the crime. It is an essential mode of liability for core international crimes because it reaches out to senior political and military leadership. These persons do not usually engage in direct offending, yet in the context of mass atrocities they are often more culpable than foot soldiers. The Statutes of the ad hoc tribunals, hybrid courts and the International Criminal Court expressly provide for different forms of complicity, and domestic legal systems recognize it in one form or another. This is in contrast with alternative modes of liability implied from the Statutes to address the situations with multiple accused removed from the scene of the crime / (in)direct co-perpetration, extended perpetration and the joint criminal enterprise.

International audience ; Le juge et son rôle ont été thématisés abondamment en théorie du droit, mais toujours sous l'angle du droit et du juge internes. On pensera ainsi aux questions des rapports entre justice et politique ou démocratie, ou encore au rôle créateur de droit du juge en cas de lacune juridique et à la légitimité du droit dit prétorien. Pour autant que l'on considère qu'il s'agisse bien d'un juge, le juge international ou européen et sa fonction judiciaire posent des problèmes de même type certes bien que plus aigus, mais aussi des difficultés nouvelles auxquelles la théorie du droit n'a pas encore donné de réponses. Le présent ouvrage tente d'identifier ces difficultés théoriques propres au juge international ou européen et d'apporter des débuts de réponse. Fruit du sixième colloque doctoral de l'Ecole doctorale Fondements du droit européen et international et quatrième volume de la collection du même nom, il réunit des contributions en anglais et en français rédigées par des doctorants des universités suisses romandes et alémaniques et d'universités européennes partenaires, mais aussi d'intervenants externes invités aux différentes sessions du colloque.

MGIMO-University Master's Degree in International Relations "International Politics and Transnational Business". ; MGIMO-University Master's Degree in International Relations "International Politics and Transnational Business".

Defence date: 12 June 2015 ; Examining Board: Professor Kiran Klaus Patel, Maastricht University (external supervisor); Professor Federico Romero, European University Institute (second reader); Professor Sven Beckert, Harvard University; Professor Gary Gerstle, University of Cambridge. ; How do non-governmental actors exert power beyond the confines of nation-states? Examining the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) and its network of European foreign policy elites, I argue that non-governmental actors developed transnational political agendas in part to counter the democratizing and social shifts of the early 20th century. Throughout the interwar period the CEIP emerged as a key participant in cultural internationalism by providing financial and logistical aid for transnational outreach. Well connected to social elites in several countries, the CEIP's emergence illustrates how internationalism was inexorably structured by economic, social and cultural capital. As formerly marginalized social groups—e.g. women, organized labor and ethnic minorities became more integrated into national decision-making processes, traditional elites began to erect new barriers around transnational spaces to preserve existing power structures. The project investigates how the CEIP fostered the construction, transformation and circulation of expertise among the technical experts. Starting in the mid-1920s, the foundation promoted networking between economists, international lawyers and other specialists who staffed foreign ministries and international organizations such as the League of Nations, the International Labor Organization and the Permanent Court of International Justice. The CEIP used these connections and the power of the purse to stimulate the development of professional communities with the ultimate goal of reaching policy consensus on the divisive issues of the time thus in effect promoting the development of alternative governance mechanisms. This attempt to construct a techncratic "international mind" faltered with the beginning of the Second World War. Yet, tracing the careers of CEIP-connected experts into the post-war planning projects, the thesis ultimately challenges "creationist" narratives of international financial, human rights and security regimes after 1945. Many of the international policies implemented in the second half of the 1940s did not represent a clean break with a failed past. They were legacies of an attempt to make the world safe for a return to the liberal capitalist order that had marked the long 19th century.

International lawyers have traditionally been interested in public power, i.e. ability to influence substantive outcomes across national borders through state coercion or threat thereof. They have been (and continue to be) engaged in debates about ways in which that type of power can be limited or, at the very least, made accountable. More recently international lawyers have also developed an interest in private power, i.e. ability to influence substantive outcomes across national borders without the use of state coercion or threat thereof. This paper explains how accountability for exercise of private power is achieved using the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) as an example. ISDA's accountability consists of a combination of procedural Global Administrative Law-like standards applicable to ISDA itself as well as legislative, regulatory and judicial recognition of the market conventions developed by ISDA. This model of accountability makes ISDA responsive to both cosmopolitan and national constituencies.

The law, including international law, is subject to continuous change. It can be adapted to changing circumstances through formal amendments of or additions to existing norms and practices. It can also be changed through the conduct of international institutions that is not within their legally defined competencies, provided - it will be argued - that the unauthorised conduct (a) is not expressly forbidden by existing rules of international law, and (b) is accepted or condoned by a cross-section of the international community of states. The creation by the Security Council of the United Nations of ad hoc international criminal tribunals, for example, cannot even with a stretch of the imagination be justified on the basis of the powers of the Council stipulated in the UN Charter. However, their creation was applauded by the nations of the world as a feasible and practical way of responding to the atrocities of the early 1990's in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The creation of international criminal tribunals by the Security Council has thus come to be accepted as a new rule of international law. The same reasoning is applied to the newly acquired competence of NATO forces to intervene militarily on humanitarian grounds as exemplified by the NATO bombing campaign of 1999 in Serbia, while not one of the NATO countries was being attacked or under threat of an attack, and the competence of States to attack terrorist groups in a foreign country if the government of that country is either unwilling or unable to prevent the ongoing acts of terror violence.