Search

The post Cold War years have witnessed a steady proliferation of peace agreements to bring violent social conflict to an end. This same period has been marked by the transnational mobilization of women to secure gender-sensitive reform within international law and institutions. With respect to the role of women in postconflict societies, peace agreements have been targeted as important opportunities for advancing the position of women. In 2000 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which mandated the involvement of women in all levels of peace agreement negotiations and the integration of a ‘gender perspective’ throughout the operation of peace missions. This paper sets forth the findings from an ongoing study of all currently available peace agreements signed since 1990, providing an analysis of the place of women and gender in the text of these agreements. The paper will focus on the types of roles envisaged for women in peace agreements provision (women as victims of violence, as internally displaced persons or refugees, women as combatants, political actors, and/or household heads). It will also address the following under-examined questions: How has the prevalence and substance of peace agreement provisions on gender changed since the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1325 on October 31, 2000? And does a positive correlation exist between a UN role in mediating agreements and the inclusion of positive gender rights in those agreements? This large-N study is useful for identifying temporal trends in peace agreement provision and gender, however, it does not facilitate conclusions about the relationship between peace agreement provision and how women fare in the post-conflict environment. The paper will therefore conclude with some observations on the implications of the project for future research on gender and peacebuilding. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the most effective ways of heightening the public and media salience of human rights issues in an era when security concerns habitually are granted top billing? In this paper, I examine one way that international human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attempt to mobilize public opinion in democratic societies. Such NGOs attempt to draw attention to human rights abuses abroad in order to increase the salience of such issues to the voting public in such a way that electoral pressures can be brought to bear on the leadership of democratic major power states ? states that may have the ability to influence human rights abroad. Related research has demonstrated that domestic politics can influence the extent to which donor states incorporate human rights into their foreign aid policy.In recent years, one of the ways that NGOs have most successfully drawn public attention to human rights abuses has been to enlist the help of celebrity spokespersons. These high-profile representatives by definition command a degree of media coverage and public attention that rivals not only those of NGO heads but also of most elected political leaders. Recent examples of human rights-related NGOs whose campaigns have received substantially higher levels of coverage following celebrity endorsement include the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Amnesty International, and Drop the Debt. Using both quantitative and qualitative content analysis of media coverage and public opinion regarding of these and other NGO campaigns over the last ten years, I examine the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement as a tool that NGOs can wield in their battles for influence over public opinion and elected officials. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper concentrates on authority and the responsibility to protect. The paper's principal finding is that states during and after the Cold War have strongly supported the restrictions in international law on the use of armed force. The humanitarian crises, civil wars, and conflicts in the 1990s and 2000s reinforced state suspicion of power not regulated by international law. States have resisted any step - unilateral interventions, assigning responsibility for human protection in the event of state inaction to the Security Council, or working around the Council in extraordinary situations - that could diminish the nominative power of the law. The recent internal strife in Kenya, Darfur, and Kyrgyzstan has shown that the concept enjoys a high profile, but its practical influence is quite limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States has a mixed relationship with multilateral treaties. The United States has often been one of the leading voices for multilateralism, and many Americans (both governmental and nongovernmental actors) have been active in the initiation and negotiation of these projects. However, when it comes time to seal the deal the United States is much more reluctant. There are nearly 150 multilateral treaties that the United States has signed, but has subsequently not ratified. Signing, but not ratifying, demonstrates an internal struggle among domestic political actors over the direction of U.S. foreign policy. But these domestic debates can have a tremendous effect on the policies of other states and the development of international law. These debates also reflect the merit of Ruggie’s (1993) thicker definition of multilateralism. The deliberations surrounding multilateral treaties often reflect something deeper than just trying to find a way to get three or more states to work together. It is important not to miss the ideational elements along with the economic reasons in understanding why certain multilateral conventions do not materialize. It is typically during ratification debates that the divisions in society over the merits of multilateralism versus unilateralism are revealed. These debates are less stark when the Senate is deciding on bilateral treaties. Using multilateral treaties signed but not ratified by the United States as the empirical referent, this paper explores the historical evolution of the idea of multilateralism and how its implementation is often stymied by domestic politics. I argue that American behavior often shows support for the idea of an international system built on generalized principles of conduct but it is often unwilling to accept the nature of the reciprocal bargains that would need to be struck if the provisions of the treaty were actually implemented. The paper first presents statistical evidence of America’s changing relationship with multilateral treaties through an examination of historical and subject matter trends. I then look more specifically at a number of cases drawn from the human rights and environmental fields, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, to show how the push-and-pull of the domestic ratification process affects the development of multilateral commitments. Because multilateral conventions are a major source of international law, the paper also considers the international legal consequences of American behavior. The paper also considers the validity and likely effectiveness of treaties that do not include the world’s major power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research design of this paper represents the first attempt to quantitatively analyze both the decision of a third-party state to intervene in a civil war and the decision of an intervener to alter the level of its support to a civil war combatant. While the literature on the decision to intervene is theoretically rich, there have been few quantitative empirical studies on the topic. What is more, those quantitative studies that do exist suffer from flawed research designs. The research design I offer in this paper would make several contributions to the study of intervention initiation. First, and unlike previous studies, I simultaneously address the three questions of when, at what level, and on which side a third-party state is more likely to intervene in a civil war. In so doing, I construct a dependent variable that better captures the decision calculus of a potential intervener and that allows for richer theoretical analysis. Second, I do not model a civil war as an instantaneous event. By opening up the black box of civil war, I recognize that a third-party state decides whether to intervene at various points throughout the civil war. From this recognition, I develop new hypotheses that reflect intra-war dynamics. As it concerns the escalatory decisions of those third-party states that intervene in civil wars, there is very little theoretical work and no quantitative studies. This paper, therefore, could significantly improve our understanding of why an intervener?s level of support would vary over the course of a civil war. Although no empirical analysis is provided in this paper, I do offer hypotheses on civil war intervention and describe the data and methods that will be used in future quantitative tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares how the United States pursued United Nations Security Council resolutions in 1990 and 2002-2003 opposing actions by Iraq. It addresses the question of why the United States succeeded in building a coalition authorizing the use of force in 1990, but was unable to do so through the Security Council in 2003. The paper focuses on the role of the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in the policy-making process, evaluating how the United States worked through its Mission at the United Nations to pursue its policy agenda. In the twenty-first century, as the United States works with other nations to advance its foreign policy interests, scholars and policy makers alike need to understand how the United States can operate in the United Nations most effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is a commonplace that the foreign policy behaviour of a state at time t is partly based on its assessment of the success or failure of policy in a similar area at time t-1, and this proposition clearly applies to some at least of the interventions/non-interventions of the 1990s ? thus, for example, it is generally argued that the US decision not to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 was largely taken in response to the failed intervention in Somalia in 1992/3. Such a pattern can be explained in ‘rational actor’ terms or, bracketing intentionality, via a cybernetic feedback model. The question to be explored in this paper is whether this pattern can also be understood in terms of notions such as ‘guilt’, ‘blame’ and ‘responsibility’. Does it make sense to argue, say, that the leading members of NATO could have had a ‘guilty conscience’ about their failure to act in Bosnia in 1992-5, and that this partially explains their willingness to act in Kosovo in 1999? Are terms such as ‘guilt and ‘blame’ only appropriate when applied to individuals as opposed to institutions? The aim of this paper is to investigate this question, using ‘The West Wing’ as a fictional reference point for considering the record of the 1990s. . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My paper proposes a framework for understanding the emergence of new human rights issues, rights omitted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as well as those mentioned but given little prominence until lately. In recent years, groups such as the mentally and physically disabled, Third World slumdwellers, South Asian Dalits (untouchables), AIDS patients, victims of corporate malfeasance, and the world’s poor have claimed internationally- based rights. In most cases, their efforts have met resistance from governments and powerful corporate interests. Even apparent allies among major human rights NGOs have voiced misgivings about new rights, arguing that rights proliferation may cheapen their traditionally central concerns, civil and political rights. My paper argues that the construction of new human rights norms involves four phases. First, politicized groups frame long-felt grievances as rights. Why and how they do so has received little scholarly attention. Second, they seek to place new rights claims on the international agenda, chiefly by convincing gatekeepers in major international human rights organizations to adopt and promote new rights. This seldom-examined stage is crucial since a handful of powerful NGOs jealously guard a perceived human rights core and exercise significant power in certifying new rights as worthy of international action. Third, NGOs spearhead new conventions before key international bodies. Finally, whether or not formally enacted, new norms require implementation not merely in domestic law but also on the ground. Highlighting the first two phases of this process, my paper draws on theories of social movements and transnational relations to develop new insights about the political construction of new rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In August 2000 the UN Security Council endorsed the creation of world’s first hybrid court -- the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Both international and Sierra Leonean prosecutors and jurists preside over the trials and appeals. Launched in January 2002, the SCSL commenced investigations in October 2002. This paper evaluates the SCSL over its first two years by addressing some of the questions analysts raised at its launch. First, have the relations between the SCSL and Sierra Leone’s truth commission been cooperative or competitive? Second, is the SCSL likely succeed in bringing to justice those persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the human rights abuses of the 1990s? Finally is it likely that the SCSL’s legacy will hasten the establishment of the rule of law, a legitimate legal system, and human rights norms? In so doing, this paper broadly evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the hybrid court model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Criminal Court is under researched by IR academics. Given the wealth of material in the debates that surround the Court this is unlikely to remain so for long. This aim of this paper is to start addressing that gap by using another ‘underexploited resource’ (Buzan, 2001), the ‘English School’ approach to IR. It is suggested here that its tripartite distinction of ‘international system’, ‘international society’ and ‘world society’ can provide a useful framework for interpreting the significance of the ICC. It is further suggested that the debates surrounding the Court, and international criminal law more generally, can sharpen the focus of these English School categories and inform the discussion on the relationship between international and world society. Specifically, it identifies the former in the Grotian solidarist principles of aut dedere, aut judicare [either extradite or prosecute], and the latter in the ICC’s Independent Prosecutor, which can by-pass the society of states in its pursuit of justice. The concessions made to international order and state sovereignty by the Court illustrates the complex and uneasy relationship between international and world society. By focusing on American opposition to the Court, moreover, the paper illustrates how Grotian solidarist principles are being used to counter the revolutionary impact of the Rome Statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses the causes of ethnic conflict and the usefulness of autonomy in addressing these sources of conflict. Based on a historical institutionalist framework of analysis, the paper argues that autonomy solutions are constrained by what I call national models. These national models are shaped and transformed at various critical juntures when ethnic relations are renegotiated and institutionalized in various ways. As a result, the application of general solutions in the form of autonomy packages (including federal or conferedal solutions) will fail in many instances. The paper analyses these trends in several cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current debate on the post-9/11 world is heavily concentrated on the foreign policy of the United States; that is, it is based on the reductionist approach (Waltz 1979). The nature and potential change of the international system has been ignored. It is clear that the current hegemony of the United States in international system justifies one to ask whether international system is changing from anarchical towards hierarchical. This is a big question of high theoretical, empirical and practical value. In order to find any answers to that question, a lot of extensive and intensive systematical research is required. Therefore, instead of suggesting a solid thesis, the present paper is a survey of ideas and findings on which the suggested project might be based on. First, the paper discusses the basic concepts of the systemic approach as introduced by Waltz (1979) as well as his analysis of the existing international system both before and after the end of the Cold War. Second, the problematic of the study of power in international system is briefly discussed. Third, major features of the current international system are examined. It is maintained that some clear features of hierarchical international system can be recognized; at least it is possible to share Tim Dunne?s (2003) view that even if the present tendencies do not establish ?a new global order but altogether they have forced us to confront its becoming.? It is claimed that the United States? position as the lead state of the emerging hierarchical system is based on its overwhelming military power (the ?command of the commons? as suggested by Posen 2003), the strategic doctrine and political will to use that power, and the justification obtained for war on terrorism from the 9/11 attacks. War does not disappear from the new system, but instead of anarchy, there is only one enmity; that between the terrorists (and the rogue states that support them)) and the defenders of freedom, of which the United States is the leader. ?War on terrorism? is the ordering principle of the new system; it is the United States?s function to define the terrorists, whereas the others? function is to support the United States in this war. Finally, it is suggested that more research into the basic issues of the new system is required, particularly on 1) theory and analysis of international system/politics in Waltzian sense, looking beyond his ideas by adopting more recent knowledge and approaches of the field; and 2) the bases and mechanisms of the present international system, with emphasis on military and ?constructionist? power, with main reference to international law and war on terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of gender mainstreaming in over 100 countries since 1995 (True and Mintrom 2001: 27) presents a challenge to develop feminist methodologies capable of studying a global process that transgresses national, disciplinary and methodological borders. This paper addresses True and Mintrom’s challenge to ‘develop a full understanding of the nature and impact of gender mainstreaming’ (2001: 30). To achieve this, the paper offers an account of methodological questions raised doing doctoral research on the adoption and implementation of international gender norms (gender mainstreaming) in the Republic of Ireland. In particular, the paper details the implications of studying a gender policy that is marginalised within mainstream bureaucracy, an indication that gender mainstreaming is not a national policy initiative. The paper begins with a discussion of the gendered conceptions underpinning official statistics. This discussion focuses on debates in the literature (Mossink 2001) and amongst policy-making communities relating to the tools for implementing gender mainstreaming, namely gender disaggregated data, the construction of quantitative indicators of gender equality and theoretical questions underpinning data collection in relation to gender (Galligan et. al., 2000). In short, the absence of basic information about the participation of women at the national level highlights the role of International Organizations in raising the profile of gender equality as a legitimate policy ambition at national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper observes the translation of international gender norms at the national level by analysing data gathered using qualitative interview techniques amongst gender mainstreaming policy-makers in the Republic of Ireland. The paper argues that language, as a means of communication, is central to the creation, development and proliferation of political ideas amongst members of social groups struggling to create alternatives to the status quo (True, 2001, p. 1). Global feminist activity allows for the exchange of ideas amongst women, unhindered by the narrow expectations for their gender in national level political life (Dutt, 1995: p. 307). While there were wide disparities of opinion between feminists (Goetz, 1997; Ward, 1999) from North and South at the Beijing conference (1995), a shared set of core beliefs between diverse feminisms (Henley & Kramarae, 1991, p. 40), allowed the launch of gender mainstreaming as a means of legitimating and institutionalising feminist concerns in mainstream policy-making. However, difficulty arises when gender mainstreaming leaves the safety of the margins (hooks, 1996, p. 48) and enters mainstream policy-making, thereby making the transition from metaphor or feminist rhetoric to a tool for political decision-making and policy-making. This paper documents the conversion of international gender norms (gender mainstreaming) into national policy in the Republic of Ireland. The paper concludes that gender mainstreaming was introduced in the Republic of Ireland in 1996 as part of a global movement, which is observable in changes in the discourse of national political institutions. The new discourse is one where a policy of ‘gender mainstreaming,’ as opposed to ‘women’s rights,’ is pursued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Common wisdom suggests that an exclusive peace agreement is more likely to be followed by armed conflict. However, the empirical foundations of this argument have so far not been explored. In this paper, it is examined if and how exclusion of parties in a peace agreement influences the likelihood of post-settlement armed conflict. New data on warring parties and peace agreements in civil wars during 1989?2002 are introduced, and these are analyzed employing a Cox proportional hazards model. This paper supports the notion that exclusion does matter, since the findings show that an exclusive peace agreement is indeed more likely to be followed by armed conflict. Moreover, in order to assess how exclusion may influence armed conflict it is examined who fights after peace agreements. The results indicate that the excluded parties are more likely to be involved in post-settlement armed conflict, which is consistent with the theoretical argument that excluded parties have higher incentives to fight. Interestingly, it is also found that excluded splinter groups and included strong parties are more likely to fight in the aftermath of a peace agreement. Although the findings are intriguing, it should be noted that the results are to be seen as tentative until more data has been collected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ?legalization of world politics? has a variety of faces: It is inherent in the pro-liferation of international hard law as well as soft law, and it is generated through inter-governmental negotiations (e.g. the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), through public-private policy networks (e.g. the World Commission on Dams) or through more or less formalised coalitions between civil society organizations and business corporations (e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council). The resulting complexity poses a challenge to the study and practice of international relations. While the effec-tiveness of different governance mechanisms has been the focus of much literature, the legitimacy of different forms of transnational rule-making have been given far less at-tention over the last few years. In this context, this paper asks under what conditions transnational rule-making can be legitimate. The aim of the paper is to provide a theoretically coherent and empirically use-ful concept of democratic legitimacy which can be used to evaluate actual processes of transnational rule-making. The argument is mostly theoretical and unfolds in three steps: First, I introduce and discuss constitutionalist, pluralist, and deliberative models of democratic governance beyond the state. Building on the discussion of these models, I then distinguish between four basic dimensions of legitimate rule-making, namely legitimacy through participation, legitimacy through democratic control, legitimacy through discursive practice, and legitimacy through good results. The discussion of these four dimensions of democratic legitimacy serves to establish a set of more specific criteria for the evaluation of decision-making processes beyond the state. Third, I dis-cuss to what extent different social contexts may justify variation in the degree of inclu-siveness, control, and deliberativeness of decision-making processes. I conclude my paper with a set of criteria and questions which may serve as a basis for evaluating ac-tual decision-making processes beyond the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authority of the United Nations Security Council to take action in defense of international peace and security is derived from the U.N. Charter, a document that has the legal status of a treaty. Under the prevailing theory of international law ? legal positivism ? states are obligated to follow the dictates of the Council because they have consented to its authority by signing the Charter. Yet while the Charter technically limits the Security Council’s legal authority to preventing and opposing interstate aggression, the Council has rarely acted in this area. Rather, its most effective and significant actions over the past decade have been in providing for stability and peace within states, for example in nation-building, prosecuting war crimes, peacekeeping, dismantling apartheid, alleviating serious humanitarian crises, and helping to resolve civil wars. This subtle shift in the Council’s mission did not involve any legal changes in the scope of the Council’s authority; it did not emerge through amendments to the Charter nor did the U.N. adopt new rules or procedures. Rather it evolved through political consensus among the membership. This paper will explain why the U.N. member states have accepted the Council’s expanded legal authority even though they never explicitly consented to this change. It will argue that under certain conditions, states adopt a form of international law that is based not on state consent but international consensus, a merger of the political with the legal. Under the consensus theory of international law, international obligation can be derived from a convergence of international opinion over basic principles underlying specific legal rules, rather than explicit consent. This means that even those who are not parties to particular treaties or conventions are expected to abide by the rules. In a system lacking a central government, consensus is determined through a generally-accepted political process that states accept as legitimate, in this case, the deliberative process of the Council. Under this condition, states will recognize the authority of international consensus ? defined as a convergence of international opinion ? over individual state consent as the foundation of legal obligation. Under such a system, no state can exempt itself from its principles on the basis of non-agreement. The proposed paper will illustrate this by tracing the evolution of the Council’s expanded authority into area beyond its jurisdiction. It will draw from Council records and interviews with representatives from Council and non-Council countries conducted by the author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict and cooperation over water have long been issues of curiosity for scholars and practitioners interested in international security and peace. Conflict arises not only because water respects no political boundaries but also because no clear and accepted international principle of water rights and water sharing exists. States must therefore resort to negotiations. To date, analysis of negotiations over water has largely been limited to case studies. The theme of the paper is to depart from this case study approach and to see whether there are common characteristics that link these negotiated outcomes. The study of conflict and cooperation over water is unique in that of all the transboundary environmental problems, similar water problems occur throughout the world. There are over 200 international river basins, 178 of which are shared by two states. To be sure each basin and the associated problems are unique in the details. However, many are similar enough that the outcomes associated with them can be compared. The paper is primarily concerned with the nature of the conflict that arises, and the treaty remedies used for resolving the conflict. Only bilateral agreements are analyzed?focusing on rivers or lakes shared solely by two states. Specifically, the cost-sharing regime, relative to the projects agreed upon in the treaty, is investigated. The paper argues that overall patterns in international water treaties, in general, and the cost-sharing regime, in particular, can be attributed to differences in the geography of a river (or lake) and the location of the states vis-à-vis the river (or lake), the differences in relative income between the states, the relations between them and the type of project agreed upon. These findings may shed light on the direction states will choose to negotiate their water disputes in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested by those writing on contemporary forms of empire that the persistent and regular breaches by the United States of international law are not in keeping with some of the oldest democratic traditions of the country. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, this paper suggests that the opposite may more accurately be the case. While aware of the complex origin of the relevant international law, the paper traces - with Arendt - some of the imperial origins of our current legal predicaments surrounding ?imperial/humanitarian? war to processes crucial to defining the official US state-public sphere. In doing so, it joins others in interrogating the space opened for violence by law and recent invocations of human rights ideologies in the context of US hegemony. For a copy of this paper email: powens@usc.edu [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There exists ? in the abstract ? considerable international support for humanitarian intervention in cases of widespread atrocities. At the same time, this support is tempered by a concern among many political leaders that the international community currently lacks a coherent and legitimate legal process for implementing this norm. The United Nations Security Council is widely regarded as the only actor with the legal authority, political competency, and international legitimacy for carrying out effective humanitarian intervention. Yet the permanent members have kept the legal standards for such intervention deliberately vague, so that they can adjust the principles to fit their individual interests. This undermines the Council’s legitimacy to act in this area. This paper assesses the prospects for developing a sustainable international legal standard for embarking on humanitarian intervention through the Security Council. It then discusses the possibilities for making the Council accountable to a more explicit and transparent legal framework. It suggests that increased involvement by human rights and other non-governmental organizations has increased the pressure on the Council to develop more consistent standards on defining the level of human rights atrocities that merits outside armed intervention. Pressure from NGOs is also increasing the transparency of the process for making such determinations. While there is a large body of literature that examines the role and influence of NGOs in such areas as the environment and human rights, far less has been written about such influence in the area of international security. This paper will focus on how these groups have begun to influence the agenda of the Security Council and how this has been pivotal for developing effective guidelines for determining whether a situation meets the threshold of humanitarian intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growth of humanitarian law over the past 50 years has failed spectacularly to protect civilians caught in war. Old laws have failed to constrain new wars. An elaborate legal regime applies to international conflicts, treating belligerent states as sovereign equals who reciprocally honor the rules of war. By contrast, the regime governing internal conflicts is incomplete and uncertain. Molded by states, the law discounts the status of non-state actors, spurring governments to label them as rebels, insurgents, bandits, and terrorists, and to restrict protections accorded them. These same designations are often extended to civilian populations, thus eroding the category of civilian and the principle of non-combatant immunity. Despite mounting atrocities, many states resist strengthening the domestic regime, leaving NGOs to emphasize customary law and traditional principles of humanity. The theoretical argument rests on a critical analysis of Article 3 and Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, which deal with conflicts not of an international character, as well as recent jurisprudence at the ICTY. The paper tests this skeptical view of humanitarian law against events in Chechnya, Colombia and Sudan. The paper lends credence to the new stream of international law research, which explores the political and ideological underpinnings of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Voluntary human shields have so far been active in Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As it seems reasonable to assume that their presence will to continue to increase, their status under international law must be codified. During the US’s build-up to war with Iraq in 2003, dozens of peace activists traveled to Iraq to serve as voluntary human shields. Their goal was to protect various sites throughout the country from destruction by using their civilian status as a deterrent to US or British attack. Although their goals were clear, their legal status was not. In fact, voluntary human shields do not fit into any of the accepted categories recognized by international law. Furthermore, while there is a substantial body of literature on the status and use of involuntary human shields (i.e. hostages), little has been written about volunteers. My paper attempts to provide a much-needed examination of the legal status of voluntary human shields both during and after international armed conflict. I therefore begin with a discussion of how voluntary human shields do not fit into any of the accepted categories recognized by international law. For example, taking part in hostilities is one of the characterizing distinctions between civilians and belligerents. Human shields, however, do not appear to be taking part in hostilities in any recognized way. In both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the concept of belligerency is based on the possession and use of weapons, but human shields are not armed. Illegal combatancy similarly requires the possession of weapons, so voluntary human shields do not fit in that category, either. Perhaps the closest legally recognized analog is the civilian authorized to accompany the armed forces of a state, as described in the Geneva Convention. This analogy, however, raises as many conundra as it resolves. If the presence of a voluntary human shield is not authorized by his host military, under current law he cannot be treated as a prisoner of war. If he does have the proper authorization, his host military may be in violation of international protocols which prohibit the use of civilians as shields. In that situation, the human shield himself might be entitled to prisoner of war status on the theory that a treaty violation by his host military should not be held against the shield himself. In either event, voluntary human shields should not be treated as civilians when military commanders are deciding whether or not to strike a target where human shields are present. What is needed is a resolution in international law regarding the status of voluntary human shields. An approach to that resolution is presented by this paper. This will provide both the shields and the parties to an armed conflict guidance regarding the proper treatment of these volunteers, both during and after military operations against a site where they are located. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why is it that some rebel groups in civil wars successfully emerge as political parties in the post-settlement period while others do not? A growing literature on conflict resolution processes in intrastate wars has attempted to identify the dynamics of these processes and under what conditions they are more or less likely to succeed. One such factor that has been argued essential in regards to the successful implementation of peace agreements is the transformation of former warring armies to peaceful political actors. However, no study has examined under what conditions such a transformation is likely to occur and why it is more likely to occur in some cases but not in others. This puzzle is of great relevance to both researchers and policy makers concerned with understanding the factors that facilitate or obstruct a transition to peaceful politics in the aftermath of a protracted armed conflict in a weak state. In this paper, it is suggested that the explanation is to be found in the degree of domestic and international legitimacy that the rebel group is able to acquire and sustain in the transition period. This paper also takes a first empirical look at the case of Renamo in Mozambique and the RUF in Sierra Leone and discusses the preliminary findings from these cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Community/European Union (EC/EU) has been on the brink of falling apart several times, or at least at times this appeared to be so. Obstreperous member states have from time to time torpedoed or otherwise undone intra-community cooperation; the European Commission has at times boldly overstepped its relegated authority; publics within member states have from time to time smarted at the democratic deficit and shut down integration by rejecting instruments that would push it forward. French President Charles de Gaulle’s inflexible opposition to creeping supranationalism in 1965-66, for example, blocked the development of the European common market at a rather crucial time and cast the community into crisis. In the 1970s failures to find consensus regarding energy issues and monetary affairs caused crises that threw the European Communities into what some saw as fatal disarray. Similarly the British-instigated battle of the budget that took center stage in intra-European diplomacy during the 1980s caused another crisis that some thought might be fatal, and in fact did seriously challenge the future of the EC. In 1992, the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty at least partially out of concern that the design of the new treaty, if institutionalized, would move centers of European decision making ever so much farther away from European people. Even today a potential crisis of integration surrounds the related issues of the eastward enlargement and institutional reform. Some proponents of the uniting of Europe might look upon integration since the 1950s as a rather smooth progression of positive steps in the direction of economic and political amalgamation. But a more sober, realistic, assessment suggests that European integration has been in considerable measure the product of a succession of political life-threatening crises that have been constructively resolved. Crises have been numerous and have in their time appeared grave indeed. But none have greatly damaged the functioning of the EC/EU or seriously affected ultimate movement toward greater European integration. This paper examines these periodic crises such as the Empty Chair Crisis in 1965-1966, the Oil Crisis in 1970s, the British Budget Crisis in 1980s and the Ratification Crisis in 1992 within the EC. Admittedly, this is a less than original research concern, since a good deal of work has already been done on crises of European integration. Yet, this paper is not so much in the conventional question of how the crises got resolved, but rather in the deeper and theoretically more important question of why the crises got resolved. That is, the fact of successful crisis resolution is not the issue of this paper; explaining successful crisis resolution is what the project is all about. Why was the crises successfully and constructively resolved? And in particular, theoretically, why? The problem of explanation of answering the why questions, is actually a good deal thornier that it might at first appear, because there are actually two major steps involved. Answering the why questions requires explanatory theory; that is why the search for an appropriate explanatory theory must precede the search for an appropriate explanation. The problem here is that none of the theories commonly used to analyze European integration turn out to be very useful for analyzing the effects of crises, and none of the theories commonly used to analyze crises turn out to be very useful for explaining European integration. After a good deal of effort trying to fit square empirical pegs into round theoretical holes, this paper falls back upon General Systems Theory to ground explanations. The tenets of General Systems Theory contribute importantly to explaining why even the very serious Ratification Crisis did not greatly damage the workings of the EC/EU or set back Europe’s progress toward greater integration. The primary goal of this paper is to show that memory matters, in that memory is a prominent source that regulates the crises. This paper argues that memory directly, indirectly and mainly influences constructive crisis resolution in the EC/EU. To pursue this goal, this paper is structured in three main sections. The first provides an overview of the crises. The second seeks to show that the interest-based explanation, arguing that the crises were resolved by rational calculations of objective national interests, is not satisfactory. The final section seeks to demonstrate that the Europeans continue to be burdened by the lessons drawn from World War II and memory of the wars is deeply embedded in a new political culture ? a problem-solving culture ? of the EC/EU. It is argued that the carriers of memory such as perseverance, acceptance, mutual responsiveness and friendship played an important role in resolving the crises. Then, this paper concludes that the regulatory capacity of the EC/EU system turned out to be more than sufficient to handle disturbances from the environment that caused the crises. The EC/EU is stable and durable, because the regulatory capacity of the system is rather impressive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper concentrates on authority and the responsibility to protect. The paper's principal finding is that states during and after the Cold War have strongly supported the restrictions in international law on the use of armed force. The humanitarian crises, civil wars, and conflicts in the 1990s and 2000s reinforced state suspicion of power not regulated by international law. States have resisted any step - unilateral interventions, assigning responsibility for human protection in the event of state inaction to the Security Council, or working around the Council in extraordinary situations - that could diminish the nominative power of the law. The recent internal strife in Kenya, Darfur, and Kyrgyzstan has shown that the concept enjoys a high profile, but its practical influence is quite limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When and how do states with a history of enmity transform their rivalries into robust partnerships? And in particular, how do rivals that have engaged in war achieve a stable, enduring peace? This paper takes a small step toward answering these questions. Through a "brush-clearing" exercise and preliminary analysis of a set of 44 rival dyads that, having experienced war, later achieved transitions to stable peace, the paper sets the stage for an investigation of the process of moving from warring rivalry to institutionalized cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how the legacy of injustice in East Asia has been addressed against the backdrop of the evolution of international law and transnational activism by empowering individuals to bring complaints against aggressors. Supported by a feminist legal and culturalsociological perspective, it analyses the judicial developments, political origins and implications of both "comfort women" and Chinese historic injustices issues. The aim of this paper is to identify the functioning norms and mechanisms of justice systems in the East Asian context and its interactions with the norms of global justice. It is argued that though the transnationalization of law and activism (human rights and feminist movements) has opened new options to address injustice in East Asia, the dominant group thinking and culture, culture-specific understanding of justice, the treatment of sexual violence and slavery as taboo and contextual multi-faceted political and economic considerations have obstructed to provide victims openly and successfully with justice and redress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a sociological theory explaining the evolution of complex treaty regimes in the security field. In a legal world where tensions exist between treaty regimes, it asks: How do international law practitioners harmonize legal rules when overlapping jurisdictions exist with competing claims to solve an issue-specific problem? The article first shows how political scientists have analyzed the causes and effects of "regime complexes" and how their analyses can be applied to the study of legal fragmentation in the field of nonproliferation, where a global regime coexists alongside prior treaty regimes, in particular, the transatlantic regime crafted by the United States and the Western European states. Second, the paper shows what field theories of international law inspired by the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu can add to the analysis of regime complexes. It also shows that Bourdieuan analyses of international law need to be complemented by a hermeneutic analysis of legal interpretation in order to explain how regime complexes evolve toward fragmentation or harmonization of treaty rules. It shows that the interpretive quality of the constitutive treaties of each regime (whether they are clear, ambiguous, or opaque) explains which legal rules survive and which ones disappear when new treaties with overlapping jurisdiction are introduced. It demonstrates this thesis by using the case of nuclear proliferation from 1950 to 1975, with original archival fieldwork conducted in the private papers of Jean Monnet and his American and European collaborators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Somewhat paradoxically, the international human rights regime that has developed since 1945 is not founded on an explicit understanding of human nature. Although the rights set out in, for example, the Universal Declaration of 1948 clearly do imply an account of human flourishing, and, like those specified in the US Declaration of Independence are held to be 'self-evident', rights advocates have generally steered clear of the notion of a human nature, largely because religious understandings of the notion are likely to be divisive, while secular, Darwinist understandings had been de-legitimised by their misuse by racists and eugenicists in the first half of the twentieth century. This desire to avoid 'essentialist' accounts of the nature of human beings is understandable, but it means that the standing of the regime either rests ultimately on its legal status, or on the notion that rights are 'convenient fictions'. Neither position convinces enemies of the notion of human rights. This paper will argue that the rejection of essentialism post-1945 was a mistake; while critics were right to point to the misuses of essentialism, the idea that humans have a nature is defensible, although it may be that the term 'human nature' which implies a constant may be a mistake - hence the scare quotes in the title of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last twenty years, many regional intergovernmental organizations have adopted rules requiring that all member-states be democracies, and specifying certain penalties that are to be imposed on any state that undergoes a democratic reversal. These rules - occasionally called democracy clauses - have recently received increased attention from political scientists. In keeping with this year's theme of "Political Authority in Transition," this paper asks whether rules that transfer some authority over domestic politics to international organizations, like the Inter-American Democratic Charter, are in fact constraining the ability of domestic political actors to overthrow or undermine unconsolidated democratic regimes. Building on models predicting coup risk, this paper shows that from 1991- 2008 democracy clauses were correlated with a decrease of almost 25% in the likelihood that a state would experience a coup in any given coup-year, holding other factors constant. This finding contributes to our understanding of the international influences on democratic consolidation, and on the efficacy of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to improve international governance are based on increased acceptance of shared norms within the international community. By creating and reinforcing sets of normative rules, conditions for more effective cooperation are created between countries. Such a system can be easily undermined by states, which do not comply with the norms, as enforcement by force is often problematic due to political constraints. Drawing on Giorgio Agamben's State of Exception, the paper argues that Israel is currently existing as a "state of exception" within international law, which jeopardizes attempts at establishing more effective regimes of global governance as well as regional cooperation. Israel's refusal to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is just one of the examples where Israel's position impedes international efforts - other states point at Israel's position when refusing to abide by international norms. Israel is indeed in many ways an exceptional state, and its officials keep reinforcing such discourse. By analyzing the consequences of the claims to exceptional status effectively out of bounds of international law, the paper argues that it would be beneficial in the long run for Israel to normalize its conduct as well as official positions (including the admission that it indeed has nuclear weapons), as only improved international governance can lead towards improved security in the region in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper mounts a critical re-examination and historical reconstruction of the International Theory of Carl Schmitt. This intervention responds to the revival of Schmitt in the field of International Legal and Political Theory. Specifically, the paper c ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is part of a project investigating the reciprocity between theory and practice in world politics. To what extent is foreign policy theory-informed? To what extent is political theory policy informed? The paper intends to contribute to the debate. It does so by contrasting the academic development of IR with one of the other disciplines central to world politics, political theory and foreign policy: International Law (IL). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers some examples of cosmopolitan norms and normative development demonstrably at work in the international law on the use of force. Cosmopolitan norms are not foreign to the international rules on the use of force. At the same time, their development represents a move away from the status quo. Using a broad definition to capture the development of the cosmopolis in the norms of international law on any terms, this paper examines some examples of cosmopolitan norms and normative development demonstrably at work within the use of force regime for the state of their development, and the effect of their progressive normative influence on that regime. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The well being of children of heterosexual unions is a key logic in rulings against same-sex marriage in recent court cases in Washington, New York and the current court case over Proposition 8 in California. This paper will being with an examination of the historical development of children's rights and welfare vis-à-vis their parents in the U.S. and in international law and how these arguments have been used to defend 'traditional' marriage. The paper will suggest that international law and institutions addressing children's rights and welfare have created a globalized child, one that possesses the same needs and wants and requires identical rights. According to international laws and norms addressing children, all children under age 18 cannot be denied these rights regardless of gender, nationality, religion and other social markers that are employed to categorize children. This paper will argue that opposition to same-sex marriage based on distinguishing rights for some children (those of heterosexual parents) as opposed to other children (those of queer unions) is ultimately unsustainable given the trends in children's rights nationally and internationally in the last 60 years. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Like international law in general, the principle of universal jurisdiction relies upon the "domestication" of international norms through the incorporation of treaty obligations into national legal codes. But universal jurisdiction is perhaps the most controversial of these border-crossing acts of international law, as the national judiciary of signatory states becomes the location where universal jurisdiction is housed and enacted, often in cases where the alleged perpetrators, victims and the crime itself are associated with another location entirely. Despite considerable political and diplomatic obstacles to this creative, sovereignty-jumping and yet sovereignty-enshrining design, there have been "windows" which have opened up for the advancement of universal jurisdiction over the past six decades. In this paper, I will analyze one such case - Spain, whose 1985 Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) opened such a window, and whose courts have since been a veritable magnet for such cases, from the Pinochet Case to more current cases in such far-flung places such as China, Guatemala, Gaza, and Guantanamo. The paper will also analyze the partial closing of that window by legislative action in May 2009, thus specifying the political, diplomatic, and transnational mechanisms leading these windows to open and close. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in 1990, proponents heralded it as a major achievement and the most comprehensive set of protections for migrant workers and their families. By 2007, however, only 37 countries had ratified the Convention. Why have so few countries ratified the Convention and at a slower rate compared to other treaties opened for ratification around the same time? And why have certain countries ratified the treaty while others have not? This paper will examine the decision of states to ratify the Convention. The paper employs a Cox Proportional Hazard model to test the hypothesis that identification as a sending or receiving country of migrants - an issue specific variable - is a significant explanatory factor that explains the likelihood of commitment at a faster rate. The analysis reveals support for this rational choice hypothesis, as well as variables that take into account domestic political processes in accordance with a liberal theoretical understanding of treaty commitment. Factors such as the strength of democracy and states' respect for human rights are found to be significant. The paper argues that a synthesis of rational choice theory and liberal theory are necessary to understand the likelihood and rate of commitment. There is no support, however, for an ideational or normative theory of ratification in this case, which diverges from other scholars who examine commitment to international human rights treaties. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While international law has assumed the role of a reference frame that establishes the legitimacy for international encounters, the acceptance of international law itself has become increasingly contested. Multiple cases of norm contestation suggest that Henkin's erstwhile observation that almost all states comply almost all the time with almost all the principles of international law is no longer a reasonable assessment of how norms work in the 21st century. Even the most powerful actors are keen to establish the legitimacy of their action even if it meant being in breach with international law. To address the paradox, global constitutionalism poses the central research question of how is it possible that enhanced breaches with the fundamental norms of international law have generated an increasing desire even among the most powerful norm-breakers in the international realm to be considered as proceeding legitimately. The paper introduces the concept of global constitutionalism as a template for empirical research on the future of international law. It defines global constitutionalism as a contextual and practice-oriented approach to analyse shifts in the foundations, limitations and principles of political order over time. The paper proceeds in four sections: Section 1 focuses on emerging constitutional quality beyond the state; section 2 puts modern constitutionalism in context; section 3 turns to details of a constitutionalist framework, and section 4 discusses the validity of global constitutionalism as a research framework with reference to then noted legality-legitimacy paradox in international relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper showcases the newly developed software â€"StatNews©-announced at ISA 2008 and its use in an international law and foreign policy research. The paper addresses the relationship between legality and legitimacy in framing decisions of military intervention ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the employment of voluntary and mandatory UN sanctions by the Security Council in different contexts and poses the question: does the Council adopt different sanctions regimes in different crisis situations? To answer this question, every Security Council resolution between 1945 and December 31, 2007, applying or endorsing sanctions (whether the sanctions authorized were voluntary or mandatory) is classified into one of four context categories based on the type of crisis that the sanctions adopted addressed. The four contexts are: 1) interstate conflicts; 2) intrastate conflicts; 3) rogue and pariah states; and 4) non-state sponsored terrorism. Within each category, the sanctions regimes are analysed using the same three criteria to allow within and between group comparisons. The analysis includes a study of the: 1) objectives the Security Council sought to achieve through the application of sanctions; 2) targets of the sanctions (were they state, sub-state or non-state actors?); and 3) methods employed by the Security Council including the type of sanctions applied (arms embargoes, travel sanctions etc.).Based on these three criteria, consistent patterns of sanctions regimes emerge within each context category. In the case of interstate conflicts, the Security Council applies an arms embargo first followed often by a UN mission. Peace negotiations occur after. For intrastate conflicts, the pattern is reversed; the Security Council authorizes the deployment of a UN mission first, followed by the application of a myriad of sanctions to provide "teeth" to an already negotiated peace agreement.Rogue and pariah states remain the most difficult of cases to tackle using sanctions, especially those bent on pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Arms embargoes and diplomatic sanctions are the tools of choice. Non-state sponsored terrorism represents the newest context category. The Council applies arms, travel and financial sanctions to deal with a specific terrorist group. However, there is no obvious sequence of missions and negotiations associated with these sanctions regimes as there is for the conflict contexts.This paper concludes that the Council adopts different sanctions regimes to address different types of crises. However, because the sanctions literature has focused on the tool rather than the context in which sanctions are applied, these distinct patterns of application have been overlooked until now. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how the Special Court is contributing to the memory of the conflict in Sierra Leone. Based on empirical research the paper looks at the following: the belief that the Court instituted 'white man's justice' in relation to its narrow mandate and jurisdiction; the fact that many had gotten away with their crimes 'scott-free'; and the desire to 'let sleeping dogs lie' for the time taken to prosecute a few individuals. Research highlighted that many felt excluded from this process and notions of justice had become intertwined with feelings of economic and social injustice as many people remain in poverty. The Court is a visual reminder of the justice inside its structure and the injustice outside. As such, the paper finds that the Court has inadvertently reinforced a division in Sierra Leone of those who have access to justice and those who do not which is implicitly tied with the gap between rich and poor. This therefore, serves to undermine the Court's overarching goal of addressing impunity. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship between the moral classification of the enemy and its relative power. The tendency to establish normative hierarchies based on the moral construction of the enemy as an "uncivilised other" is facilitated when the enemy itself disrespects the norms and laws of war. While this disrespect may be the consequence of a military necessity imposed by the enemy's strategic inferiority rather than its own moral compass, its methods have historically made it easier to represent the weaker enemy as uncivilised and undeserving of rights. Carl Schmitt's critique of liberal war, that it ultimately depoliticises and dehumanises its opponents, is therefore seemingly particularly relevant in situations of strategic asymmetry. The paper argues, however, that this conclusion is not inevitable. More specifically, it argues with reference to US policy on the Geneva Conventions that the depoliticisation and dehumanisation of the enemy stems from a conservative and not a liberal reading of the relationship between law, politics and humanity. The true liberal state can interrupt the descent into unrestrained warfare even under the contemporary conditions of profound strategic asymmetry. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the emergence and evolution of international norms on reparations for repatriating refugees. While there is widespread and growing support amongst national and international actors for displaced persons' right to redress, particularly in the form of real property restitution, international law does not yet provide a definitive backstop for this view. Furthermore, although reparations efforts in regions such as the Balkans have garnered extensive attention and praise from refugees, researchers and policy-makers alike, international norms on reparations for returnees are still not evenly implemented in major repatriation operations. Although the tools of redress have been honed remarkably since the end of the Second World War, this paper argues that reparation is still a clumsy tool in the hands of states and international actors, and must be further sharpened in order to ensure that return processes are fair and sustainable. The paper concludes by reflecting on the risks associated with overstating the current strength of international norms on redress for refugees. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper seeks to review current criticisms of contemporary liberal state practices as they appear in critical IR theorizing. Specifically, it identifies various modes of drawing on Carl Schmitt's ideas on ultrapolitical liberal crusading as configuring at least parts of these criticisms, arguing that this reliance causes a major lapse in the analyses of "liberal enmity". The paper calls for a reevaluation on two points. On the one hand, a more analytically sensitive treatment of contemporary state practices reveals that mechanisms of generating emergencies and societal mobilization are neither specifically liberal nor limited to the present. On the other hand, the Schmittian distinction between the private "foe" and the public "enemy" is unmasked as a rhetorical device that - aporetically asserting in one place that the Political can have limits and then affirming its "total" character in another - legitimizes communitarian visions of conflict, rather than representing a way of limiting them. Applying these results to the concept of nomos, often presented as an alternative to liberal universalism, unmasks it as a rhetorical device legitimizing violent practices of aggression and ordering, as well as an identity politics of enmity sustained by its eternal outside, which has little, if anything to offer about the humanization of war and politics in general.In sum, contemporary criticisms of discourses of enmity are justified, but they miss their target: it is not the ultrapolitical liberal state that is the agent generating these, but Schmittian practices of sovereignty making a frightening return. The Political is the ultrapolitical, and we need to detect its logic obtaining in contemporary liberal politics of conflict to properly criticize it. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meaningful global governance is hardly possible without at least some consensus on the pattern of values that necessarily underpin existing international society. Although much discussion on global governance has often been reduced to "technical" problems, such as the analysis of possible solutions to identified collective problems, this paper argues that future theories of global governance need to be placed it in a broader framework of international society. Assuming there is an inherent conflict between values in any international society, who are the main dramatis personae? This discussion inevitably leads to the issue of the structure of international society considered in its empirical, legal and political dimensions. The important question is however, how this structure is related to the theoretical and paradigmatic framework of international law. Is contemporary international law prepared to accommodate the new agents of order. This paper, by providing insight into the structure of contemporary international society, explores the role of non-state actors and their relationship with international law and draws some conclusions as well as preliminary answers to these fundamental questions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combatant responsibility has been hotly debated among the political theorists during the past few years. In this paper I aim to look at the moral responsibility of soldiers in order to apply the theory to one specific class of combatants whose status so far has been quite neglected within the theory of war. The objects of my study are child soldiers and the aim of it to find out if we can consider children as morally responsible soldiers. I will argue that the narrative of innocence commonly attached to the child soldiers may, and should, be challenged, and shall stress that a child in an organised military group is not only a child but also a soldier - and as a soldier subject of combatant responsibilities. My claim is that the current legal framework of individual criminal responsibility discharging child soldiers from their combatant responsibility is highly problematic and I want to further stress that even if we do not want to hold these children legally liable (to same extent we hold adult soldiers), we should not neglect the idea of holding them responsible altogether. The conclusion of this paper is that if we maintain that soldiers are moral agents with certain specific responsibilities for their roles as soldiers, and if we further hold that at least older children can be considered as moral agents, we should consider child soldiers as morally responsible combatants as well. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are human rights? Why do countries violate human rights? How can human rights be better promoted and protected? Landman (2004: 204) shows that these three inter-related questions have motivated scholars from many disciplines in the field of human rights. One possibility to answer these questions is comparative politics. But most of the comparative analysis can be distinguished into comparing many countries or in comparing few countries in order to answer the above mentioned questions; mostly comparative politics “forget” regional protection systems as important area of research.The paper will focus on regional protection systems: Europe and the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Council of Europe and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, America and the American Convention of Human Rights by the Organization of American States and Africa and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’s Rights. Regional protection systems seem to be important to answer the third question. Regional protection systems can be one detail to promote and protect human rights because the member states are forced to implement common, regional standards as a consequence of the binding effect of international law. The reasons why to develop regional systems of human rights protection seems to be quite simple: regional systems are functioning better. Smith (2003: 84) found out three criteria for this thesis: effectiveness, accessibility and enforceability. These criteria oversee the legal and political framework for the better functioning: the regional international organization. International Organization theories seem to be fruitful to explain the foundation and development of regional protection of human rights. The paper attempts to build bridges by bringing human rights, comparative politics, international law and international organization theory together. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to develop a conceptual framework that can serve to analyze the governance of global environmental change beyond the international regime. To this end, two theoretical approaches are integrated: the neo-Gramscian approach and the governmentality perspective. The paper combines insights from these two perspectives in order to generate alternative and deeper understandings of the: (i) nature of the state; (ii) character of power and authority in the international arena; (ii) basis of the increasing involvement of non-state actors (NSAs) in global governance; and (iv) the relationship between state and NSAs. The paper does not make any claim to the possibility of unifying the two theoretical perspectives. Rather, it is posited that, in combination, they offer a superior understanding of the changing order in relation to international climate governance in particular and the notion of global governance in general. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates whether the right of return has become an accepted principle of international law, and whether the world's states abide by the international legal principles associated with this right. The "right of return" as a putative principle of international law stipulates that members of national, ethnic or other groups have a right to migrate to and / or be naturalized in the country that they / the state considers to be that group's homeland or place of origin. The legal and practical significance of this rule in international law is profound, given its implications on the lives of many individuals and diaspora communities who are living in uncertainty. The paper will examine the limitations of a positivist approach in determining the status of this particular rule of international law, by looking at various key cases on the right to return, including the Palestinian case and practices by significant countries. One of the key conclusions is that a positivist assessment of the putative rule has to be tempered by the stark examples of violations and questionable state practices that have occurred vis-a-vis those seeking the right to return. The paper will also consider how other approaches and scholarly disciplines might be more relevant to the study or provide directions for future research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the International Criminal Court (ICC) as an instrument for the global enforcement of international human rights law and the US opposition to it. It argues that the ICC is a step away from the classic regime of state sovereignty towards the integration of a broader framework of global governance and law. The article looks at one of the major challenges to such global enforcement of human rights by looking at the opposition of the United States against the Court. It analyses the reasons for the US opposition which are mainly based on the ICC's jurisdiction and criticisms that the Court does not recognise the 'special' role the US plays as only remaining superpower. The US made a number of attempts to undermine the ICC, based on a unilateralist focus on national interests and national law enforcement. More recent events, however, suggest that the US is increasingly adopting a more practical approach towards the ICC by acknowledging the Court's role in the overall system of justice. The paper argues that the initial hostility and actions taken to undermine the ICC were based on a belief that the US could prevent the Court from coming into existence. However, so far the ICC has proved to be too strong mainly due to a large number of developments preceding its creation that provided strong foundation on which the ICC is built. This has led to the US adopting a more pragmatic approach towards the Court. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]