Suchergebnisse

Ecrite entre 1386 et 1389 pour le jeune roi français Charles VI dans une situation d'instabilité extrême causée par la guerre avec l'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme, cette oeuvre d'un clerc et juriste provençal constitue un miroir de prince très particulier. Sur la base de sources latines, les quatre livres réunissent un abrégé de l'histoire d'Israël et de l'Eglise catholique, un résumé de l'histoire des quatre royaumes de l'Antiquité et un traité sur les problèmes juridiques de la guerre. L'auteur insiste sur les conséquences dévastatrices des conflits guerriers, sociaux ou religieux. Il incite le jeune roi à exercer le pouvoir de manière juste et à rétablir la paix dans le monde chrétien. Le texte s'est répandu immédiatement parmi la noblesse, du Sud de l'Europe jusqu'en Ecosse, et principalement à Paris. Parmi les quatre-vingt-sept manuscrits conservés, celui qui sert de base à l'édition présente est le plus ancien manuscrit daté et localisé (Paris, 1397).

L'elogio della sconfitta: Le Divisions sur la maniere des richeces et povretez de ce monde e il sogno imperiale di Teodoro Paleologo / Marco Di Branco -- Enseignments e le Divisions di Teodoro Paleologo tra la Francia Valois e la corte borgognona (XIV secolo) / Angelo Izzo -- Divisions sur la maniere des richeces et povretez de ce monde -- Riflessioni sui modi della ricchezza e della povertà di questo mondo

Das Observatoire de la Vie Publique (die madagassische Abkürzung lautet SE.FA.FI.) ist eine 2001 gegründete Nicht-Regierungsorganisation, die sich - finanziell und technisch unterstützt von der Friedrich Ebert Stiftung - der Förderung der Demokratie und Aufklärung über die Staatsbürgerrechte verschrieben hat. Ihr Bericht über ihre Aktivitäten im Umfeld der Wahlen ist zugleich eine Aufklärungsschrift. Es geht um Freiheits- und Versammlungsrechte, Presse- und Informationsfreiheit, parlamentarische Immunität, aktives und passives Wahlrecht, die Qualitäten, die einen Volksvertreter haben sollte, die Verhängung des Ausnahmezustandes und internationales Recht sowie um Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. (DÜI-Sbd)

Thanks to crowdfunding, deliberative mini-publics can be funded bottom-up to reach a wider support in the population and secure financial autonomy for their design. But who are the people willing to pay for deliberative democracy and why? This article answers this twofold question using an original survey with crowdfunders of the G1000 in Belgium. First, the financial support for deliberative democracy mainly comes from the more socially advantaged groups. But second, the crowdfunders largely diverge in their democratic preferences. Some are critical and favour any forms of alternative decision-making process, including technocratic forms. Others demonstrate a stronger attachment to electoral institutions and their political actors. Hence, the study of the crowdfunders of the G1000 shows that deliberative democracy attracts the support of citizens with different political orientations. This sheds light on the complex and intertwined links between a mini-public and its larger maxi-public.

While a great deal of attention is devoted to the Pacific region as the new chessboard of international politics, Pakistan remains a key actor in terms of both threat and potential. Two observations back this argument: first, Pakistan's fundamental roles as a state are challenged by its ongoing conflict with India and internal insurgencies. Second, due to a power-status gap, Pakistan experiences difficulties in holding specific self-conceived roles. In addition to hampering its socio-economic potential, these developments prevent Pakistan's quest for normalization in the system. As a consequence, we argue that engaging with Islamabad should be a priority for Washington so as to prevent the country from further aligning with Beijing, thus reinforcing China's regional leadership and status as peer-competitor to the United States. Indeed, as the potential for deviance in the international system arises from its normative dimension, the US, as the global leader, counts among its roles that of norm-setter and primary socializer for most states. Our research proposes to look at an old puzzle with new theoretical insights. By addressing the question of Washington's engagement towards non-conforming states, we aim to document a set of socialization processes as intervening variables linking American global role as leader and primary socializer to Pakistan's process of social integration (normalization/deviance). Drawing from sociology and social psychology, the paper seeks to explore the ability of the leader to act as a primary source of role location and status recognition towards non-conforming states so as to integrate them (back) into the US-led system.

The participation of non-state actors to international politics has been investigated since the creation of international institutions. Yet, the rules, principles and norms of global governance are no more discussed in single, isolated institutions. Rather, with the proliferation of international regimes and organisations, international issues are now negotiated in a context of institutional interactions known as "regime complexes". This poses new questions, in particular on the negotiation burden that these new processes place on international actors. To answer this question, this contribution compares non-state participation in both contexts (single regimes and regime complexes), using the international forest negotiations as a case study. It uses quantitative methods to measure the negotiation burden of single regimes and compare it to the negotiation burden of regime complexes. The negotiation burden of single regimes is found insignificant with political interest being the major motivation for participation, while the negotiation burden of regime complexes is found relevant, requiring a certain type of material and organisational resources for non-state actors to participate. Yet a certain diversity of non-state representation is maintained within regime complexes, with non-governmental organisations being dominant with respect to business groups.

Some states are widely recognized by policy makers and scholars as middle powers. The characteristics that were highlighted for these countries have become the basic guidelines for understanding middle powermanship and developing the corresponding theory. While those analyses offer rich in-depth insights into the foreign policy of specific countries, they have so far lacked a further step of generalization. When establishing such power-based rankings, we assume the possibility to determine states' capacities so as to identify their position in said ranking. As appealing as this theoretical model may be, the reality of international politics increasingly challenge it. Thus, we argue that this theoretical inadequacy is due to the fact that middle power theory as it has been developed so far should be understood as an inductive, not a deductive, approach . Consequently, the contemporary reality calls for yet another stage of development in this theory. The choice of Pakistan as our case study arises from the observation that while Pakistan can hardly fit into the current classification(s) of middle powermanship due to its poor economic and development performances, it is a nuclear state and is –at least– in the top twenty armies of the world. Moreover, we find several cases in which Pakistan has used the diplomatic tools characterizing middle powers, such as mediation or niche diplomacy. Our paper aims at answering two questions: (1) can middle power theory bring some light on Pakistan's positioning in world politics? (2) Alternatively, what does the case of Pakistan tell us about the (ir)relevance of middle power theory? We build upon role theory to develop the case of middle powermanship as a status-role bundle, by analyzing three specific cases of Pakistan's foreign policy: Pakistani nuclear posturing, its Afghan policy and its posturing vis-à-vis the Saudi-Iranian regional competition.

In recent years, public authorities and civil-society organisations, driven by increasing public disengagement and a growing sense of distrust between the public and their representatives, have been instituting exercises in public deliberation, often using 'mini-publics', that is relatively small groups of citizens, selected according to various criteria and representing different viewpoints, brought together to deliberate on a particular issue. From small-scale experiments, mini- publics have recently taken a constitutional turn, at least in Europe. Iceland and Ireland have turned to deliberative democracy to reform their constitutions. Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania have also experienced constitutional processes in a deliberative mode. In Belgium, the G1000, a citizen-led initiative of deliberative democracy, has fostered a wider public debate about the place and role of citizens in the country's democracy. At the same time, the European Union institutions have introduced different forms of deliberative democracy as a way to reconnect with citizens. These empirical cases are indicative of a possible 'constitutional turn' in deliberative democracy in Europe. These examples of constitution-making happened in a particular time and place but they may also serve as models for other events.

The results of the UK referendum in favour of leaving the European Union (EU) clearly put into question the European economic and political project as well as its institutional structure. This article argues that the Brexit may be a momentum to reform the institutional structure and procedural rules through which tax policy is made at the EU level. The UK referendum is indeed unlikely to further slow down the EU harmonization process in tax matters, which has always followed a tortuous path. Instead, the Brexit may give momentum to reform major weaknesses of the EU institutional and decision-making process in tax matters, in particular the unanimity rule and the role of the European Parliament. Finally, with regard to taxation specifically, the establishment of an EU tax, providing the EU with sufficient genuine own resource, could also reinforce EU's legitimacy by countering the criticisms related to Member States' contribution to the European budget.