Suchergebnisse

This article deals with the issue of the environment in international politics & makes a case that the environment as a subject matter is fundamentally different from other political issues. To this effect, the concept of eco-holistic analysis is put forward whereby environmental issues are incorporated into the analysis rather than the structural & systemic forces & constraints within which actors operate. The concept of eco-holistic analysis is based on three pillars (the historical dimension of environment-society relations, the concept of consumption, & equity) which offer new dimensions of analysis highlighting why traditional institutionalist approaches to the study of international environmental politics are lacking in offering suggestions for effective environmental improvement. 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

Neoliberal institutionalism represents the fourth phase in the development of
the liberal institutionalism theory. Unlike the previous ones, at this stage
of development, theorists focus on international institutions as independent
actors in international relations, which are not only the means for the
states to realize their national interests, but also influence internal
policy in the countries. Ultimately, this leads to seeing the international
relations outside the realistic ?self-help principle? as ones defining the
behavior of states. The ambiguity in the further positioning of neoliberal
institutionalism is regarding the phenomenon of global governance. The global
governance is becoming reality. Because of this, states are often forced to
act beyond their particular interests, giving priority to solving problems
through international institutions. However, this largely does not happen due
to state decisions, but thanks to the activities of non-state actors.
Although the international politics stay state-centered, nongovernmental
organizations and multinational corporations have more influence in
overcoming anarchy through global governance and the establishment of rules
of the game in certain areas of life. For neoliberal institutionalism, this
presents somewhat a challenge. The development of the fourth phase of the
liberal institutionalism will depend on future explanations regarding the
relation to global governance.

As a neoliberal institution, European Union has succeded in integrating. However, after the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe was failed to be ratified, European Union is experiencing setback of legitimacy. European Union later imposed Lisbon Treaty that was arranged right after the failure of constitution treaty. Still, the implementation of Lisbon Treaty triggered some new issues due to its content that is more or less similar to the previous unratified treaty. One of the issues came from the migration policy. The rejection from some of the member countries explained the legitimacy crisis on the institution of European Union. This legitimacy crisis is surely a negative precedent for European Union as a neoliberal institution. As in neoliberal institutionalism, an institution is supposed to be an independent variable when a state decides to cooperate and integrate itself in an institution. This writing is aimed to review the neoliberal institutionalism of European Union in the problems of the migration policy implementation upon Lisbon Treaty.This research used qualitative method, with neoliberal institutionalism as its core theory. This research found that European Union as an institution lacks of consideration towards the condition of its member states in making regulations. This can be seen on how the migration regulation on Lisbon Treaty still could not be implemented uniformly on all the member states. Besides, the refusal of Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia upon this migration regulation strengthen the crisis of legitimacy in European Union as a neoliberal institutionalism. The spesific finding upon this migration issues on Lisbon Treaty brought us to a conclusion that the neoliberal institutionalism in European Union needs to be examined due to the decadence of the institution's legitimacy.

Argues that neoliberal institutionalism misconstructs the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. Highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. Argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter. (Abstract amended)

AbstractThis is a complement to Anne Haila's critique of institutionalism in Chinese urbanism. This is understood as an extension of Ronald Coase's transaction cost economics in urban space. The focus is well‐defined property rights which, extended to both urban land and intellectual property, allow monopoly competition and internalise public goods — whether social or environmental — into the logic of the neoliberal commoditized transaction. This ('Washington‐Consensus') notion of rights is contrasted to the blurred ('Beijing‐Consensus') property rights arrangements of today's China. Here property is a 'bundle of rights', in which different legal persons have rights in the same unit of urban space. In this property is not well defined but instead a 'boundary object'. I draw on Francois Jullien to describe such relational property, which is coloured, less by individualism, than by Taoist‐like relations. These comprise a long‐time horizon, an ongoing never completed, never actualized character of transacting or exchange. They comprise rights‐sharing, obligation‐sharing and risk‐sharing. Parallels are drawn with, not Roman and Continental a priorist, but with English a posteriorist notions of property.Résumé À l'appui de la critique d'Anne Haila sur l'institutionnalisme dans l'urbanisme chinois, ce texte l'appréhende comme une extension, à l'espace urbain, de l'économie des coûts de transaction selon Ronald Coase. Le propos s'attache aux droits de propriété bien définis qui, étendus aux terrains urbains et à la propriété intellectuelle, permettent une concurrence monopolistique et une internalisation des biens publics, qu'ils soient sociaux ou environnementaux, dans la logique de la transaction néolibérale banalisée. Cette notion des droits (dans l'axe du Consensus de Washington) est opposée aux dispositifs flous (au sens d'un 'Consensus de Beijing') propres aux droits de propriété dans la Chine d'aujourd'hui. La propriété y est constituée d'un 'lot de droits', par lequel plusieurs personnes morales ont des droits dans la même unité d'espace urbain; la propriété n'y est pas définie avec précision, constituant plutôt un 'objet‐frontière'. François Jullien éclaire la description de cette propriétérelationnelle, moins empreinte d'individualisme que de rapports d'inspiration taoïste; ceux‐ci correspondent à un type de transaction ou d'échange suivi, à longue échéance, jamais terminé, jamais actualisé– tout en englobant le partage des droits, des obligations et des risques. Par comparaison, cette conception de la propriété se rapproche, non pas des a priori de la notion romaine ou continentale, mais de l'a posteriori de la notion anglaise.

The newest liberal institutionalism asserts that, although it accepts a major realist proposition that international anarchy impedes cooperation among states, it can nevertheless affirm the central tenets of the liberal institutionalist tradition that states can achieve cooperation and that international institutions can help them work together. However, this essay's principal argument is that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. This essay highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. It also argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.