| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
113594
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
132077
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article intends to fill a glaring void in the existing academic literature on the issues and challenges which stem not only from crafting, but also making asymmetric federalism work in northeast India. It examines the extent and limits to which asymmetric federalism-specifically under Article 371A of India's Constitution-not only negotiates Nagas' sovereignty claims over their land and resources and caters to the demands of democratic justice, but also the extent to which it consolidates India's state-nation and democracy building in its northeastern periphery. Contending that the extant asymmetric federal arrangement in India's polity stems from a centralist federal framework, the article makes a case for a more robust asymmetric federalism, which goes beyond this framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
168366
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines how the economic concessions given to foreign companies during the Ottoman Empire were assumed by the new Turkish Republic and readjusted under the new circumstances that arose after the First World War. Using mainly the documents of the French diplomatic archives and of the Turkish state, the article focuses on the negotiations between the Turkish government in Ankara and the representatives of the French companies, in the summer of 1923. Taking into account the nationalist ideas of the new Turkish government, the European governments and companies were concerned about the economic path that young Turkey would follow and they were worried about their economic interests in this country. The article puts forward that the rigorous attitude of the Turkish government regarding national sovereignty and political independence was a determining factor in these first years of the new regime but did not constitute an obstacle to the privileges of the foreign capital in Turkey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
121569
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
VISITING MOSCOW during his first international trip as China's new president in March, Xi Jinping told his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Beijing and Moscow should "resolutely support each other in efforts to protect national sovereignty, security and development interests." He also promised to "closely coordinate in international regional affairs." Putin reciprocated by saying that "the strategic partnership between us is of great importance on both a bilateral and global scale." While the two leaders' summit rhetoric may have outpaced reality in some areas, Americans should carefully assess the Chinese-Russian relationship, its implications for the United States and our options in responding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
115920
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
117045
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Most people hold that in its quest for natural resources abroad, China shields rogue states with egregious human-rights record from international opprobrium and sanctions. Its political support for Sudan is a case in point. By examining Chinese perspectives on humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty, this article first argues that Beijing's interests are so multiple and complex that concern about the implications of humanitarian intervention for national integration is more crucial than oil in determining its policy towards Sudan. Paradoxically it asserts that China, a non-democratic country, is more influential than liberal democratic states in making the rules of humanitarian intervention in Darfur because of a lack of political will in the West. In addition, there are early signs that China intends to utilise its newfound power to remake international rules regarding territorial sovereignty. Further development is likely to be shaped by its interactions with the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
126249
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
125973
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
189869
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While the threats that turned Europe into the most explosive part of the
world in the last century appear to be quite relevant for Asia, the European-
style security institutions do not seem to work for Asia. The key reasons
are the historically embedded roots of the insecurity, more acute territorial
divisions, specific (non-Western) understanding of security, and ethnically-
driven separatist and irredentist movements. Also, as deglobalization
increases and the international system becomes less and less manageable,
East Asian countries tend to push harder for pursuing an autonomous
security policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
129136
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
123041
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Despite his innate caution and usually sound political instincts, British Prime Minister David Cameron is gambling with his country's future. In January, in a long-anticipated speech, he called for a wide-ranging renegotiation of the terms of the United Kingdom's membership in the European Union and promised to put the result up for a straight in-or-out popular referendum by the end of 2017 (assuming his party wins the next election, due in 2015). A British exit from the EU is now more likely than ever -- and it would be disastrous not only for the United Kingdom but also for the rest of Europe and the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
117512
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Queen's impact as Head of the Commonwealth has been a remarkable one. Catapulted into the job at the age of 25, she has filled it for more than 95% of its existence and has impressed it with her own personality: gracious, dignified, charming, interested in other people, morally impeccable, politically absolutely neutral, and without a trace of arrogance or self-satisfaction. Just as most British republicans (a small group), when scratched, agree that it would have been impossible to have had a better head of state than Queen Elizabeth II, so it is almost impossible to find any grounds on which to criticise her conduct as Head of the Commonwealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
138983
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Border security has become one of the key means by which the sovereignty and security of powerful nation-states is projected. This paper offers a set of observations of the Australian Commonwealth’s descriptions and instructions for its embrace of border security. Border security is legible here as a geopolitics that transforms the rights and responsibilities of maritime jurisdictions into a space of security that projects national sovereignty through the interdiction of boat arrivals. Its intensification as Operation Sovereign Borders is read as a further variation within national sovereignty, one that elevates the decisionist prerogative into total deterrence. Operation Sovereign Borders pushes the limits of sovereignty’s existence in the state toward a total domination of space, perception and human life in Australia’s maritime jurisdictions, in the name of the nation. This necessitates the development, defence and reinforcement of a regionally engaged materiality that is embodied, extended, enacted, and distributed. The intended effect of this coordinated effort is to secure the nation’s sovereignty as a unity, but the broader effect has been to devalue offshore life to secure onshore interests, in a way that now necessitates indefinite offshore detention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
177541
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
INTERNATIONAL PROTESTS against burning forests and indiscriminate tree felling in the Amazon revived the risk of political pressure, boycott of goods and economic sanctions imposed by great powers on the culpable states that do not pay enough attention to ecological problems. This might threaten their sovereignty: the world has increased its attention to the Brazilian Amazon and put forward unprecedented political demands. While fires were spreading across the Amazon rainforest. President of France Emmanuel Macron said at the G7 summit held in France in August 2019 that "the Amazon should be given an international status." France has not yet moved in this direction, yet its president did not exclude a possibility that this idea would become part of the international agenda: "We should predate our actions by legal and political efforts. This is an open subject that will develop in the next months and years."1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
128237
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There are clear indicators that in spite of the sensitivity of internal security in terms of essential state functions and national sovereignty an EU governance framework with specific characteristics has emerged in the counter-terrorism field. Common threat assessments guide governance responses, and specific institutional structures, cooperation mechanisms, legal instruments, and forms of external action have been put into place to respond to the cross-border nature of the terrorist challenges. However, in line with the general subsidiary role only of the EU as provider of internal security in addition to the Member States, this governance framework remains based on the interaction and cooperation between national counter-terrorist systems and capabilities that remain largely under national control and still enjoy relatively wide margins of discretion in terms of priorities, legal framework, and organization. This analysis concludes that the EU's internal security governance - as evident from the counter-terrorism field - may be best characterized as an advanced institutionalized system of cooperation and coordination between national governance frameworks constructed around a core of common instruments and procedures with a cross-border reach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
068714
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
114467
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
"YOU CANNOT CREATE CULTURE with politics. Perhaps you can create politics with culture," first President of the FRG Theodor Heuss said at the height of the Cold War.1 Today, this is as true as ever: culture remains a powerful and efficient instrument of foreign policy; it can improve the state's image abroad, multiply its friends and contribute to its political projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
154257
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article raises an alarm about the expanding hegemony of big business promoted by the US and transnational corporations. The global reach of American jurisdiction is being used to exact heavy financial and legal penalties on foreign nations and companies and promote US interests in the name of economic globalisation, as part of the agenda for fi ghting corruption and terrorism. The article highlights the threats to national sovereignty, cultural diversity and economic autonomy posed by the ruling US centric financial system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
118799
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
187452
|
|
|