Suchergebnisse

This article examines how John McCain has formed his foreign policy and what the world can expect should McCain become the next US President. A summary of McCain's military career is included, with a focus on his years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. McCain's voting record on foreign policy issues is examined and inconsistencies are pointed out and explained. It is argued that the threat of terrorism will be McCain's major focus in foreign policy, and that he will likely focus on spreading democracy and fighting tyranny to increase security. There is a summary of McCain's stance on a number on foreign policy issues, including radical Islam groups, the war on terror, Iraq, Iran, the UN, NATO, a League of Democracies, and global warming, as well as a discussion of limitations to the President's ability to conduct foreign policy, including military capacity, economic limitations, and political support. It is concluded that McCain would be based on spreading American moral values and democracy, and that his administration would largely continue the foreign policies of the Bush administration. References. E. Sundby

Throughout history, dictatorship has been the most common form of governance. However, the bifurcation between dictatorships and democracies is relatively new. Prior to the third democratic wave, it was common to divide undemocratic states into dictatorships, tyrannies, monarchies and republics - depending upon the transfer of political power and the size of the ruling class. Pre-modern dictatorships with limited resources often based their legitimacy on religion and tradition, whereas modern dictatorships stayed in power by controlling the arms and communication technologies. Dictatorships in the early 21st century have become less interested in world domination and more focused on keeping their power by avoiding revolutions and civil wars. L. Pitkaniemi

In this chapter we discuss what we have conceptualized as "the paradox of democracy", pointing to the conflict between the idea of the sovereign people on one side, and the idea that democracies need representatives and political leaders, on the other. The chapter gives an overview of democratic arrangements that encourage direct participation, including arrangements that feed into and support and arrangements that challenge the representative system. Furthermore, the chapter provides examples of arrangements that actively and intentionally link together representation and direct participation. Lastly, we discuss how the tension between participatory practices and representative democracy can be solved. In a brief and subsequent chapter, a Norwegian Mayor reflects on the conflict between representation and direct participation.

The Arctic has been home to Indigenous peoples since long before the international legal system of sovereign states came into existence. International law has increasingly recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples, who also have status as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. In northern Canada, the majority of those who live in the Arctic are recognized as Indigenous. However, in northern Russia, a much smaller percentage of the population is identified as Indigenous, as legal recognition is only accorded to groups with a small population size. This article will compare Russian and Canadian approaches to recognition of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous rights in the Arctic with attention to the implications for Arctic Ocean governance.
The article first introduces international legal instruments of importance to Indigenous peoples and their rights in the Arctic. Then it considers the domestic legal and policy frameworks that define Indigenous rights and interests in Russia and Canada. Despite both states being members of the Arctic Council and parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there are many differences in their treatment of Indigenous peoples with implications for Arctic Ocean governance.