Suchergebnisse

Sweden may seem an unlikely country to intervene in the political life of Central America, a region with a political tradition far removed from the democratic reformism of Swedish society. However, Sweden's international ambitions are much larger than its small size and distant location would suggest. This is particularly true for the Social Democratic Party, which plays a role in the international workers' movement out of proportion to the country's ostensible rank in the world

Few events have captured the imagination of progressive countries and parties worldwide as did the July 1979 Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. Many of these parties became strong supporters of the Ortega government and were thus quite taken by surprise — as were most of those involved and engaged in Central American politics — by the outcome of the Nicaraguan election in February 1991. One such party, one of the most determined in its support of the Sandinistas, was Sweden's Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetare Partlet or SAP), even though Sweden may not immediately come to mind as a natural participant in Central American politics. How can this intense Swedish Social Democratic involvement and partisanship be explained? How has Swedish support been translated into practical positions? Did the election victory of Violeta Chamorro, who was supported by the United States (a country whose Central American policy came under relendess fire by the SAP), signal the end of Swedish Social Democratic engagement in Nicaraguan politics?

Analyzes reasons for strong support of the Ortega government in Nicaragua by the Swedish Social Democratic Party, 1979-91.

Nilsson, A-S. Political Interpretations of International Legal Norms. Cooperation and Conflict, XXIII, 1988, 163-177. International law is frequently accused of being irrelevant in the international system. In political language, it is supposed to play a basically manipulative role. This study examines the use of international legal norms in political language in an effort to determine whether actors actually, as critics argue, approach these norms in a homogeneous verbal way, regardless of the legal beliefs of the actors. Actors' verbal interpretations of legal norms ("say") are contrasted to the approach found in their legal models ("think") and in practical behavior ("do"). Traditional law is one of many possible legal models. The verbal, practical and theoretical interpretations of legal norms made by four intervening actors in the Spanish Civil War (France, Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union) are analyzed and compared. Although these are actors with a wide variance in legal beliefs (one is a status quo actor and three present different revolutionary models), their verbal approaches to legal norms proved to be very similar. Only rarely did political language reflect the legal beliefs/models and behavior of revolutionary actors. Instead, also revolutionary actors relied on traditional law in political language. The acceptance by the traditional legal system of such verbal manipulation of legal norms could, it is suggested here, both weaken and strengthen this system in the long run.