| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
145761
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
After years of wishful thinking and failed efforts at Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking, the Obama administration has now finally acknowledged what most observers have been saying for some time—there is no chance of a two-state solution to the conflict, at least in the next couple of years.1 Many now question whether such a solution will ever be possible. Although diplomats and experts have long regarded a two-state solution as the best way to resolve this most intractable conflict—and for the last two decades, a majority of Israelis and Palestinians have agreed with this—this conventional wisdom is now seriously in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
117492
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Debate on the relevance (or otherwise) of federalism to the development of the European Union is often characterised by mutual incomprehension on either side. Close inspection, however, reveals that the high temperature of argument may not be solely due to differing visions of the finalite politique. For the precise meaning of the federal concept in political science remains unsettled. This article looks back to the earliest origins of federalism, in order to establish a firm basis for suggesting improvements. The idea of divided sovereignty, 'invented' in America and now thought to lie at the heart of the federal concept, is identified to be a false construction. On these grounds, it is proposed that the definition of federalism be clarified today as not 'a division of sovereignty between two levels of government', but instead 'a division of the powers flowing from sovereignty between two levels of government of equal status'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|