Suchergebnisse

An informative book focusing on the internationalisation and legalisation of peace agreements to settle intra-state conflicts between state and non-state parties. Cindy Wittke focuses on two key issues: how international courts and tribunals deal with peace agreements; and what implications the United Nations Security Council's involvement in the negotiation and implementation of peace agreements has for the agreements' legal nature, the status of the non-state parties to agreements and the interpretation of peace agreements. Wittke argues that the processes of negotiating and implementing peace agreements between state and non-state parties create new spheres, spaces and forms of post-conflict law making and law enforcement. For example, contemporary peace agreements can simultaneously take the form and function of internationalised transitional constitutions and agreements governed by international law. The resulting characteristics of contemporary peace agreement lead to permanent ambiguities shaping their interpretation and enforcement.

"Peace Agreements between State and Non-State Parties: a Research Endeavour According to the United Nations Peacemaker Peace Agreements Database, more than six hundred peace agreements have been negotiated to settle intra-state conflicts since 1989. Consequently, contemporary post-Cold War peace agreements became objects of political science research focused inter alia on the causes and consequences of intra- state conflicts, the ripeness of conflict parties and constellations for entering into negotiated peace processes, the determinants of the success or failure of peace agreements and peace processes, and the role of external actors in negotiating and implementing peace agreements. International legal scholarship, in contrast, has only hesitantly dealt with the challenges of internationalised and legalised practices of post- Cold War peace agreements. Initially, individual works on peace agreements did not refer to, or enter into dialogue with, each other. Instead of seeking to unpack shared legalised features of peace agreements or find common ground for their legal analysis from a comparative perspective, most authors stressed the singularity of the respective conflict and agreement/s"--

Seit 1991 stehen alle Nachfolgestaaten der ehemaligen Sowjetunion vor der Herausforderung, ihre jeweils eigene Politik des Völkerrechts zu formulieren und umzusetzen. Dabei werden sie seit mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten auch von starken Konfliktdynamiken in der Region herausgefordert. Diese Konflikte scheinen grundlegende Prinzipien der regionalen sowie internationalen rechtlichen und politischen Ordnung(en) infrage zu stellen. Der vorliegende Beitrag unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit, die Politiken des Völkerrechts der Staaten im postsowjetischen Raum grundlegend zu erforschen, vergleichend zu analysieren und dabei über den häufig herrschenden Fokus auf Russland hinauszugehen.

Seit 1991 stehen alle Nachfolgestaaten der ehemaligen Sowjetunion vor der Herausforderung, ihre jeweils eigene Politik des Völkerrechts zu formulieren und umzusetzen. Dabei werden sie seit mehr als zwei Jahrzehnten auch von starken Konfliktdynamiken in der Region herausgefordert. Diese Konflikte scheinen grundlegende Prinzipien der regionalen sowie internationalen rechtlichen und politischen Ordnung(en) infrage zu stellen. Der vorliegende Beitrag unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit, die Politiken des Völkerrechts der Staaten im postsowjetischen Raum grundlegend zu erforschen, vergleichend zu analysieren und dabei über den häufig herrschenden Fokus auf Russland hinauszugehen.

With the incorporation of the Crimean Peninsula into Russian territory, the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine and the temporary formation of the confederation of Novorossiia (New Russia), the international community of states has been witness to complex processes of reimagining territories, boundaries, citizenship, and fragmented sovereignties in the post-Soviet space. In its foreign policy agenda, Russia conceptual- izes all former Soviet republics as the 'Near Abroad', a special sphere of its interests and influence. This paper explores Russia's use of the vocabulary of international law to legitimize its interventions in the Near Abroad, which is connected to the 'Russkii Mir' (Russian World), another foreign policy concept that resonates with ideas of Neo- Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory and with the creation of a Eurasian space as a counter-concept to the West. Russia and its conceptualized antagonist, the West, take positions on public international (legal) front lines, evoking counter-narratives concerning their understandings of the meaning of the vocabulary of international law and politics, the regulation of international relations, and the foundations of world order. These clashes leave observers wondering: Russia may instrumentalize and manipulate the vocabulary of geopolitics, international law, and politics, but what if these clashes are also rooted in different imaginaries of international law and poli- tics? Against this background, this article aims to develop conceptual approaches to further investigate and gain a better understanding of the complex dimensions of the clashes between Russian and Western counter-narratives and discourses concerning the meanings and functions of basic principles of international law and politics as powerful societal regulative imaginaries.