Suchergebnisse

The term 'zone of peace' is sufficiently vague and imprecise to serve the most divergent political purposes. As 'peace', moreover, signifies a supreme moral/political value, neither individual nor state could straight-away oppose something that is being proclaimed in its name. The Soviet Union has made early and frequent political use of this quality. Thus Khrushchev, while taking up an old guide-line by Lenin about "the peoples of the East", demanded at the XX. party congress (1956) the creation of a peace zone, consisting of both the socialist camp and the newly emerging Asian and African states; this was the fore runner to later Soviet claims of being the partner in a 'natural alliance' with the Third World. Even earlier (in 1955), Nehru had equalled an 'area of peace' with the non-aligned countries between East and West; they should, by their equidistance, limit the dangers of war between the competing blocs. This was the year of Bandung.

In this article it is endeavoured to analyse the different functioning of "decentralised" (Switzerland) and "unitary" (Germany) federalism. This is done by discussing the cultural and political autonomy of member states, the possibilities of member states to control and influence federal decision‐making, the ways to implement federal legislation, and the redistribution of resources. There are, despite of "equi‐functional" structures, considerable similarities in the functioning of both countries. The predominance of a completely different discourse of justification in both countries explains the institutional and procedural differences and thus the different reform projects.