Suchergebnisse

Der Artikel befasst sich mit der geopolitischen Bedeutung der arktischen Bodenschätze sowie den sich daraus ableitenden rechtlichen und wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen. Drei Thesen stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt. Erstens: Dem Abbau von arktischem Öl und Gas stehen ernst zu nehmende Schwierigkeiten entgegen - das unwirtliche Klima, die große Entfernung von den Absatzmärkten, die Existenz von Ölvorkommen in anderen Regionen sowie der schwierige Abbau von Schiefergas. Zweitens: Es herrscht beträchtliche Unsicherheit bezüglich der Governance der Arktis, da es Körperschaften wie der Festlandsockelkommission (Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) der Vereinten Nationen (UN) und dem Arktischen Rat an multilateraler Autorität mangelt. So ergibt sich die Frage, ob die Treffen der Arctic Five, der fünf Arktis-Anrainerstaaten Kanada, Russland, USA, Norwegen und Dänemark (Grönland), zur Einrichtung eines beschlussfassenden Organs führen werden. Drittens: Momentan halten sich die Staaten, die Gebietsansprüche anmelden, zwar an internationale Normen und kooperieren miteinander, aber längerfristig wird sich das Risiko eines geopolitischen Konflikts verstärken. Und das nicht nur, weil sich der Druck von externen Akteuren in Richtung Internationalisierung der Arktis erhöhen wird, sondern auch wegen möglicher Auseinandersetzungen der Arktis-Staaten über Gebietsrechte und Bodenschätze. (ICF2)

The authors use multilateral security governance theory to propose mutual persuasion, institution-building, incorporation of non-state actors into multilateral strategies, collective action, and multilateral governance as a strategy for modern Mexico. Roberto Domínguez, European University Institute, Florence, Italy Rafael Velazquez, School of Economics and International Relations of the Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico Gonza?lez-Murphy, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany, USA

In previous editions of the Journal of Contemporary European Research, we reported on the set-up and progress of the interdisciplinary research project "The European Union and Global Multilateral Governance" (see Vol. 4, No. 1; Vol. 5, No. 1). This third and final research note presents some of the key-results of the project and suggests future areas for research.

An interdisciplinary approach to the study of the EU in UN human rights and environmental governance which addresses the legal and political science dimensions. With contributions from academics and policy-makers, this volume is a comprehensive analysis of how the challenges it faces impact on the EU's position in UN fora

An interdisciplinary approach to the study of the EU in UN human rights and environmental governance which addresses the legal and political science dimensions. With contributions from academics and policy-makers, this volume is a comprehensive analysis of how the challenges it faces impact on the EU's position in UN fora.

The entry into force, on January 1st, 2012, of the European Union Directive 2008/101/EC extending the European Emission Trading System to domestic and international civil aviation has taken the dispute regarding its legitimacy to unprecedented heights. The choice of the EU legislator to include foreign air carriers and their CO2 emissions that occurred beyond EU airspace infuriated third countries, while the fact that the directive applies the same treatment to all airline operators whatever their nationality met vivid criticism from developing countries, in particular China and India.This paper investigates the reasons why the environmental objective pursued by the EU Aviation ETS does not seem sufficient to render its unilateral adoption acceptable to the international community, despite staging multilateral negotiations and despite the flourishing national transplants of the ETS system in other jurisdictions. Thereby it provides a preliminary assessment of what the current row implies for the global governance of climate change. Devoting particular attention to the positions of the EU and China in this dispute, it argues that the opposition to EU endeavour finds its roots in the normative frictions between the climate change regime and the international aviation regime, while the lack of process legitimacy of EU unilateralism provoked third countries' claims to the infringement of their national sovereignty. Thus, it concludes that in the current international system, the harmonization of regimes' normative goals and principles must result from a political choice, the absence of which can effectively frustrate the achievement of multilateral cooperation goals. Moreover, in such context, the unilateral imposition of an alternative path involving the other regime members against their consent, to palliate multilateral norm-making, is likely to meet increasingly strong opposition from an increasing number of powerful countries. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published