Suchergebnisse

The collapse of the bipolar system of international relations at the end of the twentieth century led to global changes in these relations, the main one being that local conflicts have replaced large-scale wars. Soft power is increasingly moving in to replace hard power; international and nongovernmental organizations, transnational companies, and even terrorist groups are taking the place of individual countries on the international arena. Nevertheless, when it comes to state security, certain mechanisms that used to be part of the bipolar system continue to function. I am referring to military bases abroad, which, in the context of globalization, continue to play just as significant role in international relations as they did during the Cold War. This article takes a look at how important it is to have these facilities in the territory of foreign states, as well as the advantages they offer the countries where they are located, using Central Asia (CA) as an example.

This book, written by two Filipino political scientists and activists, tries to delegitimize the presence of U.S. military personal and U.S. military-bases on the islands. Its first part gives reasons for the necessity of the Americans to go by pointing at Philippine territorial sovereignty and the world-wide disarmament process. The following chapters work out a conception of converting the military bases into economically interesting factors in the relations between the two countries. (DÜI-Sbt)

Foreign military intervention in internal conflicts remains an important feature of today's international relations. At the same time, the paradigms of interventions in international law are changing. In today's world, questions related to legality and legitimacy of foreign military interventions are more often raised than ever. However, in many cases, there is a gap between legality and legitimacy of such interventions. Concepts such as humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect attempted to bridge this gap; however, both concepts remain contested. Complex questions of substantive law and the institutional framework of collective security are discussed in this context. Meanwhile, classic exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force, such as self-defence, are broadly interpreted. Certain States aspire to revive their ambitions by using military means to protect nationals abroad. The paper examines four cases (Georgia, Libya, Syria and Ukraine) in which different arguments have been held to justify military interventions. It attempts to answer the question as to whether there are new paradigms of military intervention in international law and to what extent the arguments made by the States to justify military interventions have influenced relevant norms and the structure of international law.