Suchergebnisse

There is a common perception of reciprocity as a concept that is opposed to the communitarian interests that characterise contemporary international law, or merely a way of denoting reactions to unfriendly or wrongful conduct. This book disputes this approach, and highlights how reciprocity is instead linked to the structural characteristic of sovereign equality of States in international law. This book carries out an in-depth analysis of the concept of reciprocity and the elements that characterise it, before examining the various roles and articulations of reciprocity in a number of fields of public international law: the law of treaties, the treatment of individuals, the execution of international law, and the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. In all these areas, it analyses both more traditional and more contemporary examples, to demonstrate how reciprocity is closely linked to the very structure of public international law.

"In international relations, reciprocity describes an environment in which states support one another for short- or long-term advantage through the balancing of rights, duties and interests. This book examines reciprocity in the context of international law. It considers the role reciprocity plays in the creation and development of international law as well as in the interpretation and application of international law. The book illuminates the reciprocal framework of international law and international relations by examining the role reciprocity plays in different types of states' obligations, including bilateral, bilateralizable multilateral, non-bilateralizable multilateral and obligations erga omnes. The book examines how reciprocity is intertwined with the principle of equality, as the rights and obligations of states are equal irrespective of size and economic or military strength, and the beneficial effects of reciprocity in creating stability and cooperation among states"--Page i

"Reciprocity in International Studies" published on by Oxford University Press.

The concept of reciprocity is ambiguous. A distinction should be made between specific and diffuse reciprocity, which have different virtues and liabilities. Neither provides a perfect formula for mutually beneficial cooperation in international relations. Certain institutional innovations, particularly in international trade, can be understood as ways to capture some of the benefits of each while guarding against their distinctive liabilities. (Original abstract--Amended)

In den internationalen Beziehungen sollte eine Unterscheidung zwischen der spezifischen und diffusen Reziprozität gemacht werden. Spezifische Reziprozität bezieht sich auf den Austausch gleicher Werte zwischen bestimmten Partnern oder genau definierten Abkommen. Diffuse Reziprozität stellt die Gruppe von Partnern gegenüber dem einzelnen Akteur in den Vordergrund. Normen und Pflichten sind als Regularien wichtig. Weder spezifische noch diffuse Reziprozität liefern ein perfektes Konzept für eine gegenseitige, vorteilhafte Kooperation. Institutionelle Innovationen, z.B. im internationalen Handel, können jedem beteiligten Akteur einige Vorteile nehmen, schützen jedoch vor den spezifischen Belastungen. (SWP-Bmt)

This book addresses two main questions: under what conditions does reciprocity fail to produce cooperation?; and when do reciprocal dynamics lead to negative, instead of positive, cycles? Answering these questions is important for both scholars and practitioners of international negotiations and politics. The main argument of this project is that positive tit-for-tat (TFT) and negative reciprocal cycles are two possible outcomes originating from the same basic process of reciprocity. It is important to acknowledge both possibilities and understand when a situation is going to develop into one or the other outcome. The study then calls for a broader discussion of reciprocity in international relations (IR). Specifically, IR should include the negative and more problematic side of reciprocity. To exemplify this, the book provides a detailed analysis of two case studies: border and maritime disputes between China and Vietnam; and Mexico and Guatemala.

Abstract
Western liberal thought, which is rooted in the social contract tradition, views the relationship between rational contractors as fundamental to the authority of law, politics, and morality. Within this liberal discourse, dominant strands of modern moral philosophy claim that morality too is best understood in contractual terms. Accordingly, others are perceived first and foremost as autonomous, free, and equal parties to a reciprocal cooperative scheme, designed for mutual advantage.
This Article aims to challenge the contractual model as an appropriate framework for morality. My claim is that the constituting concepts of contractualist thought, especially the idea of reciprocity, while perhaps fitting to law, are misplaced in morality. I argue that importing the concept of reciprocity and its conceptual habitat from law to morality yields ethical contractualism an unconvincing moral theory.