Eliminationist crimes, state sovereignty and international intervention: The case of Kosovo

1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-437
Author(s):  
Aristotle A. Kallis
1995 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Fukuyama ◽  
Gene M. Lyons ◽  
Michael Mastanduno

Author(s):  
Kristoffer Lidén

This chapter explores the normative underpinnings of the scholarly debate on liberal peacebuilding and situates them within international ethics. The debate is relevant for the ethics of global governance more broadly by addressing a theoretical gray zone between the ethics of international intervention and state sovereignty. The chapter argues that instead of rejecting the liberal internationalist objectives of peacebuilding, the critics tend to deny the coherence of liberal peacebuilding with these objectives. This is exemplified by relating the critique to the prevalent positions of John Rawls, Michael Walzer, and Simon Caney in international ethics. The critique challenges descriptive presuppositions of these positions by drawing on critical, poststructural, and postcolonial perspectives.


Author(s):  
Matthew Bagot

One of the central questions in international relations today is how we should conceive of state sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty—’supreme authority within a territory’, as Daniel Philpott defines it—emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as a result of which the late medieval crisis of pluralism was settled. But recent changes in the international order, such as technological advances that have spurred globalization and the emerging norm of the Responsibility to Protect, have cast the notion of sovereignty into an unclear light. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current debate regarding sovereignty by exploring two schools of thought on the matter: first, three Catholic scholars from the past century—Luigi Sturzo, Jacques Maritain, and John Courtney Murray, S.J.—taken as representative of Catholic tradition; second, a number of contemporary political theorists of cosmopolitan democracy. The paper argues that there is a confluence between the Catholic thinkers and the cosmopolitan democrats regarding their understanding of state sovereignty and that, taken together, the two schools have much to contribute not only to our current understanding of sovereignty, but also to the future of global governance.


Author(s):  
Mary Elise Sarotte

This chapter examines the Soviet restoration model and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl's revivalist model. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) hoped to use its weight as a victor in the Second World War to restore the old quadripartite mechanism of four-power control exactly as it used to be in 1945, before subsequent layers of Cold War modifications created room for German contributions. This restoration model, which called for the reuse of the old Allied Control Commission to dominate all further proceedings in divided Germany, represented a realist vision of politics run by powerful states, each retaining their own sociopolitical order and pursuing their own interests. Meanwhile, Kohl's revivalist model represented the revival, or adaptive reuse, of a confederation of German states. This latter-day “confederationism” blurred the lines of state sovereignty; each of the two twenty-first-century Germanies would maintain its own political and social order, but the two would share a confederative, national roof.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document