Suchergebnisse

This article explores specific reservations that are being declared to international treaties intended to protect human rights, and also whether the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is sufficient to ensure such rights. The author considers if reservations declared by a state(s) are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, and what consequences might follow if such a declaration(s) is made. To this end, the article investigates the practice of states that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the United Nations Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. These treaties were selected because they lay down significant principles for the protection of specific human rights, and also because they are frequently challenged through reservations which seek to alter fundamental provisions. On a theoretical level the regulation of reservations does not appear to be problematic, however on closer examination various reservations point to the inadequacy of current regulation in the 1969 Vienna Convention in terms of the protection of human rights. Accordingly, this article considers a major group of states that seek to become parties to treaties pertaining to human rights, but then make reservations with the intention of diluting fundamental provisions. Specifically, this applies to Islamic countries whose reservations claim incompatibility with Islamic law and by reference to their own cultural diversity. By objecting to the reservations, state parties must decide whether or not their reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. According to provisions of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may prohibit reservations for some or all of the treaty's provisions, which complicates the position of state parties. Indeed, the withdrawal of reservations can be considered more problematic after analysis of practical cases of various states than it is shown in theory. The author's analysis is intended to ascertain whether or not the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties régime is suitable for the process of making reservations to the human rights treaties, and how the applicable regulation could be improved and thereby offer possible solutions to the problems outlined above.

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction - 2. The SMOM self-qualification as full member of the international community: critical notes - 3. The nature and scope of the international legal subjectivity of SMOM - 4. The non-relevance of the canonical status and the relationship with the Holy See for the international subjectivity of SMOM - 5. Conclusions.
ABSTRACT: The presence of the Order of Malta (acronym SMOM) on the international scene, because of its singularity, has been the subject of debate and discussion among scholars of international law as well as canon law. In fact, the SMOM's juridical subjection to the Holy See because of its nature as a Catholic Religious Institute is a critical point under the traditional international legal theory that seems to be inconsistent with the Order's international subjectivity. The aim of this study is to point out that, using a broad and modern notion of international subjectivity, there is no incompatibility between the canonical nature of the Order of Malta and its membership in the international community.

Native Indian leaders in Canada have embraced the European-Western doctrine of sovereignty as the political-legal instrumentality for achieving their version of "the good society." The appropriateness & feasibility of sovereign statehood for Canada's Indians is analyzed. Indian aspirations to sovereign statehood run aground on at least two counts: incompatibility of key ideas in the European-Western doctrine of sovereignty with core values comprising traditional Indian culture, & implacable opposition of the Canadian government to relinquishing its sovereignty over Indians. Alternative models of self-determination for Canada's Indians are explored. Stateless nationhood may offer the best basis on which Indians may be able to negotiate internal self-determination. 52 References. HA.

Is State in capitalism, as endlessly muttered by Marxists of all stripes, nothing more than just a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie? The article rebuts this by presenting a brief evolution of the constitution of Westphalian sovereign state, one that is still reigning up to present day. It tries to distill the logic of sovereignty and shows how the State is actually operate outside the logic of the capitalism. In so doing, the article also discusses the encounter of these two logics in the liberal conceptions of state (esp. Social Democratic & Neoliberalism) along with its democratic ideology. The main point this article seeks to advance is that it is important to clarify and distinguish the two logics in order to see the inherent incompatibility that forever drives this collaboration towards crisis.

Current economic and political developments spotlight the relationship between domestic and global governance and the impact of globalization on both. A key question is whether a sovereign state system, democratic governments, and an integrated global marketplace can coexist. The paper assesses analytic materialist arguments for their incompatibility and the key assumptions on which they rest. The paper describes the extant pressures operating to limit each of the three: how sovereignty and democracy work to constrain globalization, how globalization and sovereignty generate a democratic deficit, and how globalization and democracy lead to limitations upon, and even the transcendence of, sovereignty. How to make the three compatible, and failing that, which facet to restrain, characterizes political contestation in a globalizing age. Global and domestic governance reflect the need to reconcile the combined implications of globalization, sovereignty, and democracy, and to do so by restraining, limiting, or transforming one or more of these features.

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

This article engages Michel Foucault's thesis that post-sovereign law would be increasingly colonized by the disciplinary norm. It explores, through an analysis of prisoner litigation surrounding Maryland's Patuxent Institution and its defective delinquency statute, how disciplinary power is enabled, understood, and resisted through law. I argue that Article 31B (as the defective delinquency statute was known) set up a zone of expert prerogative and discretion actively maintained and legitimated through jurisprudence. Yet, paradoxically, law also functioned as a conduit for resistance and contestation pitting the epistemological premises of discipline against the functions of legal jurisprudence and the foundations of criminal law. I contend that this dual character of law's engagement with discipline (i.e., at once open to expert "colonization" and site of structural incompatibility and resistance) illustrates the intractability of the relationship between the disciplinary and law. That is, law both constitutes disciplinary space (and within this normative envelope, discipline can be "unbound") and remains in a state of tension with the forms of power that develop within it (which by their very premises seek to exceed the limits law would place upon them).

Mit dem Wahlsieg der linken Partei 'Syriza' in Griechenland steht die EU vor einer neuen Herausforderung: Die als 'Brüssel-Frankfurt-Konsens' bezeichnete Austeritätspolitik als Antwort auf die Krise der öffentlichen Haushalte wird von der Regierung eines EU-Mitgliedsstaates offen und vehement abgelegt - hierfür hat ihr der griechische Demos ein klares Mandat erteil. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird argumentiert, dass diese Entwicklung, die auch andere EU-Mitgliedsstaaten erfassen könnte, das Ergebnis einer 'unmöglichen Euro-Trinität' ist, in der sich die Unvereinbarkeit von neoliberaler Wirtschafts-, Finanz- und Sozialpolitik, dem Erhalt einer gemeinsamen Geld- und Währungspolitik und einer Legitimation der europäischen Integration zeigt, die sich auf die Erwartung wachstums- und beschäftigungsförderlicher Impulse des weiteren Zusammenwachsen der EU stützt. ; The electoral success of Syriza, a left-wing party, in Greece poses yet another challenge to the European Union: The so called 'Brussels-Frankfurt Consenus' compirising austerity measures to address sovereign debt problems in the aftermath of the World Financial crisis is being openly and strongly opposed by the government of one EU member state which is supported by its electorate. In the present article, it is argued that this development which may easily spill over to other EU member states is due to the 'impossible Euro trinity' in which the incompatibility of economic and social policy with a neoliberal orientation, the safeguarding of a common European currency and the legitimacy of European integration being based on the positive expectations of economic and employment growth as result of such an integration is shown.

This book examines the factors and issues responsible for the intra-Palestinian conflict that has undermined the strength and vitality of the struggle for liberation against the state of Israel. It explores how the ideological incompatibility and competition for political primacy account for the Hamas-Fatah conflict, entailing the risk of partition of Palestine even before it takes shape as an independent, sovereign entity. It analyzes the developments since the signing of the September 1993 Oslo Accord and discusses themes such as the background of Palestinian politics; the role of Fatah; the rise of Hamas as Fatah's political rival; the Hamas-Fatah struggle for power; and the role played by the international community, including by the US and the European Union. The study deals with the various facets of territorial and political challenges faced by the rival Palestinian actions; the failure of the reconciliation efforts by Egypt and Yemen; the stalled peace process in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; the emergence of the Islamic resistance movement and secular nationalist party; and the political and ideological shifts in Palestinian politics. Comprehensive and topical, this book will be useful to scholars and researchers of West Asian studies, peace and conflict studies, politics and international relations, foreign policy, political studies, area studies and strategic and defence studies.

This book examines the factors and issues responsible for the intra-Palestinian conflict that has undermined the strength and vitality of the struggle for liberation against the state of Israel. It explores how the ideological incompatibility and competition for political primacy account for the Hamas-Fatah conflict, entailing the risk of partition of Palestine even before it takes shape as an independent, sovereign entity. It analyzes the developments since the signing of the September 1993 Oslo Accord and discusses themes such as the background of Palestinian politics; the role of Fatah; the rise of Hamas as Fatah's political rival; the Hamas-Fatah struggle for power; and the role played by the international community, including by the US and the European Union. The study deals with the various facets of territorial and political challenges faced by the rival Palestinian actions; the failure of the reconciliation efforts by Egypt and Yemen; the stalled peace process in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; the emergence of the Islamic resistance movement and secular nationalist party; and the political and ideological shifts in Palestinian politics. Comprehensive and topical, this book will be useful to scholars and researchers of West Asian studies, peace and conflict studies, politics and international relations, foreign policy, political studies, area studies and strategic and defence studies.