Suchergebnisse

"At the time of this book's publication, almost seven years have passed since the dramatic and brutal terror attacks at Norway's Government Headquarters in Oslo and the island of Utøya on 22 July 2011. How have we coped during this time? Which values have been important? Have we managed to protect the ideals of democracy, openness and humanity? And not least: Who is this ""we"" that we are referring to?

This scholarly anthology includes articles from researchers associated with the project NECORE (Negotiating Values: Collective Identities and Resilience after 22 July) and other researchers whose work is closely associated with the project. They give us insights, opinions and sharp perspectives on not just 22 July, but also about Norway today, about values, identities and resilience in Norwegian society in the wake of the terror attacks. An important backdrop for the book and the project is the assertion that, as the events themselves recede into the past, it is even more important to focus on what the terror events have led to and how we can learn from them. In a world where terrorism has become an all too common part of political reality, it is crucial that we understand how we ought to think about terror, and how we as a society encounter it."

In 2004, 20% of the Israeli population consists of people who immigrated from the former Soviet Union. 1.3 million Russian Jews live in Israel today. Of these, 800,000 have come to Israel over the last 10 years, after the fall of the Berlin Wall & the breakdown of communism. For a number of Russian Jews, meeting the realities in their new society in "the promised land" has become a harsh experience. Many Russian Jews feel that they have been left on the sidelines, notably by orthodox Israeli Jews who do not recognize them as "proper" Jews. Simultaneously, quite a few of the Russian Jews are critical to what they perceive as a Labour party softness on the Palestinians. All in all, these experiences have led to a concentration of Russian-born Jews on the Israeli political, but nonclerical, Right. 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

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.

The article compares the Norwegian & the German political debate on changes to the respective countries' citizenship laws. The Norwegian law will come into force in September 2006, while the German law was introduced in 2000. In citizenship laws we can find a contrast between an ethnic & cultural understanding of political community & a rights-based understanding. This contrast was hardly touched upon in the Norwegian debate. Among the Norwegian political parties there was broad agreement to carry on with the principle of ethnic decent. Moreover, all parties, with an exception of the Socialist Left Party (SV), wanted to introduce more restrictions on the established Norwegian practice to accept dual citizenship. The German debate dealt with the contrasting principles, & the conflict followed the left/right cleavages. The main difference found between the two countries refers to the left parties. Both with regard to the principle of ethnic decent/territorial principle & the acceptance of dual citizenship, the Social Democrats in Norway & Germany presented opposite standpoints. References. Adapted from the source document.