Suchergebnisse

Economic advantages to Britain of asserting a global, rather than a merely regional identity; focuses on economic opportunities in Asia and in Australia.

In attempting to explain the origins of pol'al conflict in new states, the soc sci'st needs to make a clear analytical distinction between culture & soc structure & to examine apparently ethnic conflict in terms of its total structural context. While conflict in new states tends to be expressed in ethnic terms, a particular conflict may have its basis in other divisions superimposed upon the ethnic ones; its structural origins may, for example, be econ. There are a number of major objections to any attempt to view ethnic conflict simply as a function of the general system of soc stratification: (1) While ethnic conflict may reflect divisions based on objective econ class, it also magnifies these divisions by relating them to competing cultural loyalties based on deep emotional attachments. (2) Far from invariably being the superstructure merely reflecting the econ base, ethnicity may determine not simply the subjective perception of that base but also its objective reality, to the extent that rational econ criteria have to be subordinated to pol'al considerations reflecting the independent influence of ethnicity. (3) Diff culturally-conditioned reactions to the same econ opportunities mean that even the most consciously non-discriminatory program of ED may further divide, rather than unite, the diff ethnic groupings within the typical new state. (4) In a stratified society like South Africa, where race provides a primary basis for ordering the whole range of SR, racial stratification does not neatly coincide with econ stratification. On the contrary, color overshadows & weakens class identification, preventing the establishment of econ ties across racial barriers. The South African case study emphasizes the importance of analyzing ethnic conflict in terms of pol'al as well as ethnic stratification patterns in the relevant society. Modified AA.

El Estado es el único titular de la soberanía, aún existen condiciones que autorizan la existencia a otras entidades políticas no estatales, especialmente desde la Declaración de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la ONU, los principios de Ius Cogens y la Constitución Política de 1991 debido a un crecimiento reconocimiento de la autodeterminación (administrativa, social, cultural, económica y territorial) de los pueblos indígenas. La Carta creó entidades territoriales indígenas sin reglamentarlas. Los pueblos originarios aún no gozan de plena autonomía territorial, en parte gracias al temor que la conversión de las entidades territoriales indígenas en entidades políticas internas autodeterminantes implicaría el fraccionamiento del Estado. No obstante, a pesar que el reconocimiento de este derecho implique la adecuación del ordenamiento político estatal actual para incorporar múltiples ordenamientos político-administrativos, estos coexistirían sin afectar la integridad territorial del Estado y permitiendo reflejar así la naturaleza multicultural y pluriétnica del Estado Colombiano. ; States are the sole holders of sovereignty internationally, but conditions exist to enable the existence of other non-State political entities, due to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the principles of jus cogens and the Colombian Constitution of 1991 with greater recognition of self-determination (administrative, social, cultural, economic and territorial) of indigenous peoples. The Constitution created but did not regulate indigenous territorial entities. Indigenous peoples do not possess territorial autonomy, partly due to the fear that the creation of indigenous, political, self-determining entities would weaken the State itself. The recognition of this right to self-determination involves the adaptation of the State s current political system to incorporate multiple systems, both political and administrative, which will coexist and reflect the multicultural and multiethnic nature of Colombia.