Suchergebnisse

This special issue of WeltTrends, titled "Perspectives of Transatlanticism. A Debate," features the debate about the future of the transatlantic relationship & world order after the Iraq war. The debate was started by Thomas Risse, with his article in the previous edition. Risse elaborated on three main points of contention between the US & Europe: the role of international law & multilateralism, democracy & human rights, & the strategy toward new security threats. Most of the scholars contributing to this issue agree with Risse in that there is no alternative to the transatlantic partnership & offer possible paths toward its renewal. The debate will be continued with additional comments & a rebuttal by Risse in the next (winter) issue. Adapted from the source document.

The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) is the only UN organization that is self-financing through fees earned on project management/provision of services in all development and humanitarian fields. Following a disruptive merger process its future looked in doubt. Combining perspectives from the disciplines of international relations, business and public administration, this book describes and analyses the ensuing reform, its problems and successes, as well as its relevance to other UN organizations and New Public Management theory

The casino image gone mad -- Innovations -- Political underpinnings : the US-Japan axis -- Political underpinnings : disunited Europe -- Wall Street and other casinos -- The debtors -- Finance and crime -- Managing mad money : national systems -- Our international guardians -- So what?

Examines the evolution of research, especially since the end of World War II, interdisciplinary relationships, and commitment to the analysis of conditions for non-violent social and political change; international focus.

International relations scholarship has made significant strides in explaining how states design treaty obligations and why they accept treaty commitments. However, far less attention has been paid to factors that may influence states' modification of their treaty obligations via reservations. We theorize that states will be more likely to enter reservations when treaty obligations increase compliance costs and policy adjustment costs. More specifically, we expect that demanding provisions, i.e., provisions that create strong, precise obligations requiring domestic action, will enhance the likelihood of reservation. To test our theory, we exploit an original dataset that codes reservations at the provision (treaty–article–paragraph) level for the ten core international human rights treaties. Consistent with our expectations, we find that states are more likely to enter reservations on more demanding treaty provisions. In contrast to prior studies, our results indicate that reservations are not driven purely by state-level characteristics such as regime type or the nature of the legal system. Rather, it appears that states weigh individual treaty obligations and calibrate their commitments accordingly.