Suchergebnisse
Filter
8 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
現代における宗敎の役割
(本特集の全体を俯瞰する骨太の基軸の論文ですので、座談会の次においてください) EUの体系的危機―崩壊(脱構築)から再構築へ ; : The European Union systemic crisis. From deconstruction to reconstruction
Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...
BASE
(本特集の全体を俯瞰する骨太の基軸の論文ですので、座談会の次においてください) EUの体系的危機―崩壊(脱構築)から再構築へ ; : The European Union systemic crisis. From deconstruction to reconstruction
Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...
BASE
(本特集の全体を俯瞰する骨太の基軸の論文ですので、座談会の次においてください) EUの体系的危機―崩壊(脱構築)から再構築へ ; : The European Union systemic crisis. From deconstruction to reconstruction
Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...
BASE
TRANSFORMASI HUKUM ISLAM DALAM SISTEM HUKUM NASIONAL : Idealisme dan Realitas
Development of Indonesian national law should not leave attention to development of legal plurality as its source. Focus of this study is to see the influence of Indonesian social factors on the development of Islamic law and how Islamic law can be integratively transformed into the National Law. By qualitative method and socio-legal approach and constructivism paradigm, this study bases on theories of social change influeces on Islamic law law without leaving methodology of usul fiqh and the sources of Islamic law. Islamic law has broad opportunity and experiences to be integratively transformed into national law within Indonesia's own character. Transformation can be done in the whole structure of Islamic law including its values of philosophy, principles and norms, and can be performed in all areas, both private and public Law, written law by political power and unwritten law with cultural approach. However, Islamic law as one of the Indonesia living laws and the sources of National law, still today is viewed in dichotomy to the National law and only transformed in limited norms. There are many obstacles to be transformed into national law integratively and widely, though Islamic law has wide space of interpretation and intellectualism that can adapt to different contexts and National law.
BASE
Strengthening the Regional Investment Agreements for Promoting International Trade in ASEAN Economic Community
This paper analyses the important of regional investment agreements for promoting international trade in ASEAN countries. To visualize the above idea, this work will explain the roles of regional investment agreements to serve investment, trade facilitation and to protect regional investment interests. It is argued that regional investment agreements can serve as a vehicle for dialogue, coordination on and to response regional issues including regulatory harmonization, infrastructure development, and collaboration among members to facilitate investment. The paper shows how regional agreements will commit to eliminate barriers on substantially trade and investment, create positive welfare gains, the productivity and stimulus to growth in the region. This paper also analyses the effect of the establishment of an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015 to the regional investment policies. AEC aiming at transforming ASEAN into a single market and production base with a highly competitive economic region, equitable economic development, free movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor, and freer flow of capital, will likely accelerate regional integration and cooperation in the investment sectors fully integrated into the international trade. Then, this work demonstrates the implementation of regional investment cooperation into the formal instruments/agreements of investment policy architecture promoting and protecting cross border investment among nationals of ASEAN member states, such as ASEAN Investment Guarantee Agreement (IGA), the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) and ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA). However, it is realized that the ASEAN members may resist and protest against the regional investment agreements because of conflicting their national interest. The paper proposed that the regional inv stment agreements need to be strengthened by harmonization and structural adjustment due to the member's resistance and protest. This idea may spark challenge because each member has fundamental differences on the nature and character of legal and economic systems reflecting different political systems, economic and social cultures in accordance with the philosophy of life values and national interests of each country. To overcome the challenge, this paper argues that ASEAN member countries need to unilaterally and collectively come up with structuring trade and investment policy harmonization to move ahead and reap the benefits from regional investment agreement as a common tool for contesting their interest in international trade. In addition, pre agreed flexibilities to accommodate the interests of all ASEAN countries may eliminate the problem.
BASE