Suchergebnisse

In Justice in Extreme Cases, Darryl Robinson argues that the encounter between criminal law theory and international criminal law (ICL) can be illuminating in two directions: criminal law theory can challenge and improve ICL, and conversely, ICL's novel puzzles can challenge and improve mainstream criminal law theory. Robinson recommends a 'coherentist' method for discussions of principles, justice and justification. Coherentism recognizes that prevailing understandings are fallible, contingent human constructs. This book will be a valuable resource to scholars and jurists in ICL, as well as scholars of criminal law theory and legal philosophy.

AbstractWithdrawal from international adjudication is a contemporary phenomenon with wide implications. The act of treaty withdrawal is not to be seen as merely the unilateral executive exercise of the individual sovereign prerogative of a State. International law places checks upon the exercise of withdrawal, recognising that it is an act that of its nature affects the interests of other States parties, which have a collective interest in constraining withdrawal. National courts have a complementary function in restraining unilateral withdrawal in order to support the domestic constitution. The arguments advanced against international adjudication in the name of popular democracy at the national level can serve as a cloak for the exercise of executive power unrestrained by law. The submission by States to peaceful settlement of disputes through international adjudication is central, not incidental, to the successful operation of the international legal system.

This article examines recent developments in China's human rights dialogues, as well as how they have evolved over time, in order to explore the trends and challenges involved in the development of human rights cooperation. If China wishes to further enhance its reputation and the cooperation on human rights matters, its next significant step should be the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In order to close the gap between China's obligations and its achievements, China and its international partners must do more to enhance their commitment to human rights progress. (China/GIGA)

Introduction 1. - 1. The Hierarchical Society 11. - 2. Risk and International Society 27. - 3. The Management of Risk 43. - 4. Managing Risks in Europe's Periphery: The European Neighbourhood Policy 59. - 5. Australia and the Management of Risk in the South Pacific 79. - 6. Preventing Risks and Changing Regimes: The 2003 Invasion of Iraq 103. - Conclusion 129

Examines the economic methodology of the International Comparison Project in which GDP/GNP estimates are based on purchasing power conversions, and its effect on comparisons between rich and poor countries. Results in a sharp jump in developing countries' share of world output.

Although the notion of international social work is not new, it is only in recent times that its central premises have been in focus. Considering diverse ongoing globalisation processes and in regard to the weakening of the national welfare state, social work must tackle the challenge of redefining its role and mission if it is to remain true to its professional commitments. The emergence of new global regions and the globalisation of local social problems make the consolidation of democracy and human rights, the prevention of conflicts and the promotion of solidarity and peace through global cultural integration some of the main concerns of international social work. In this article, international social work is discussed as a project of partnership between diverse social actors such as practitioners, universities and local governments cooperating beyond the boundaries of the nation‐state.

The author examines the conflict between the states, international law and aspirations for justice by analyzing cases of judicial intervention including: Pinochet and the House of Lords, the Congo vs Belgium, the Former Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal and the ICC.

For the United States the 'international law of global security' is, in a unique sense, synonymous with the entire project of constructing global legal order. Uniquely preponderant power enjoyed since the end of the Second World War has allowed US preferences to manifest not merely in specific rules and regimes, but in purposive development of the entire structure of global legal order to favour American security interests. Perceptions of a recent decline in this order now find expression in advocacy for a 'liberal' or 'rules-based' international order, as the claimed foundation for global prosperity and security. This working paper seeks to map out the parameters of US contributions to the global security order by uncovering the strategic and political foundations of its engagement with the international law of global security. The paper begins by reflecting on competing US conceptions of the relationship between national security and global order as they evolved across the twentieth century. The focus then turns to three significant trends defining the contemporary field. First are US attitudes toward multilateral institutions and global security, and the ongoing contest between beliefs that they are mutually reinforcing versus beliefs that US security and global institutions sit in zero-sum opposition. Second is the impact of the generational 'War on Terror', which has yielded more permissive interpretation and development of laws governing the global use of violence. The final trend is that towards competitive geopolitical interests restructuring international law, which are evident across diverse areas ranging from global economics, to cybersecurity, to the fragmentation of global order into spheres of influence. Looking ahead, a confluence of rising geopolitical competitors with divergent legal conceptions, and conflicted domestic support for the legitimacy and desirability of US global leadership, emerge as leading forces already reshaping the global security order.