Host state reactions to home state diaspora engagement policies: Rethinking state sovereignty and limits of diaspora governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahar Baser ◽  
Élise Féron
Keyword(s):  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Host State ◽  
Home State ◽  
Diaspora Engagement

The brain drain as exploitation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1470594X2110272
Author(s):  
Paul Bou-Habib
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Brain Drain ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
Affirmative Answer ◽  
Host State ◽  
Home State ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Special Duties

When skilled individuals emigrate from developing states to developed states, they leave a burdened state behind and bring their valuable human capital to a state that enjoys vast advantages by comparison. Most of the normative debate to date on this so-called ‘brain drain’ has focused on the duties that skilled emigrants owe to their home state after they emigrate. This article shifts the focus to the question of whether their host state acquires special duties toward their home state and argues for an affirmative answer to that question. After identifying the conditions under which ‘exploitative free-riding’ can occur, the article shows that the brain drain is a case of exploitation that gives rise to special duties of compensation for developed host states.

The Politics of Investment Treaty Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 739-766
Author(s):  
Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen
Keyword(s):  
State Politics ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Host State ◽  
Home State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

This chapter describes the politics of investment treaty arbitration. It first looks at two core political justifications for investment treaty arbitration. The first relates to home state politics and diplomacy: the ability of investment treaty arbitration to depoliticize investor–state disputes. The second justification relates to host state politics and institutions: the ability of investment treaty arbitration to convince certain types of foreign investors to commit capital into certain types of jurisdictions due to its effects on host state governments. On this basis, the chapter then discusses the politics of investment treaty arbitration in recent years, particularly surrounding the unintended consequences of the investment treaty regime as well as the controversy about investment arbitrators themselves.

9 Part III: Investment Promotion and Protection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hobér Kaj
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
Host State ◽  
Investment Promotion ◽  
Home State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Legal Entities ◽  
The Way

This chapter explores Part III of the Energy Charter Treaty, which sets forth the provisions on substantive protection of investments. Promotion and protection of investments are different things. Promotion of investment is concerned with attracting and permitting foreign investments. Protection of investment deals with the way in which investments must be treated, once they have been made. As a matter of policy, however, promotion and protection of investments are closely linked. That explains why the two concepts are addressed in one and the same article of the ECT: Article 10, which is entitled ‘Promotion, Protection and Treatment of Investments’. The chapter then describes the concept of fair and equitable treatment (FET). Article 11 of the ECT obliges Contracting Parties to treat key personnel of Investors in a fair way. Article 12 deals with loss of and damage to the property of Investors in situations where Article 13, concerning expropriation, is not applicable. Article 14 in essence creates a right for Investors to repatriate capital and earnings in a prompt and effective way. Article 15, a so-called subrogation clause, provides for the transfer of rights that a foreign investor may have in relation to the host State, if it has received compensation from its home state under an investment insurance or guarantee. Meanwhile, Article 16 addresses the situation when the ECT overlaps with other treaties. Lastly, Article 17 restricts the benefits of Part III of the ECT to certain categories of legal entities or Investments of Investors.

Case C-66/18 Comm'n v. Hungary (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Tamás Kende ◽  
Gábor Puskás
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
American University ◽  
Host State ◽  
Home State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
University Programs ◽  
Foreign Universities

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment on October 6, 2020 in case C-66/18 following long deliberations. The case concerned an amendment to the Hungarian law on national higher education (HEA) in 2017, requiring both new and established foreign universities in Hungary (the host state) to prove that they had a physical campus in their home state and, if their host and home states failed to conclude an international treaty on the university's operation in Hungary within a period of six months, they were forced to close and leave the Hungarian market. Of the 24 established foreign university programs in Hungary in 2017, one was particularly affected by the new requirement: an American university operating in Hungary, whose founder was at odds with the Hungarian Government, was forced to stop admitting students.

Catholicism and Cosmopolitanism: the Confluence of Three Catholic Scholars and the Cosmopolitan Democrats on State Sovereignty and the Future of Global Governance

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-51
Author(s):  
Matthew Bagot
Keyword(s):  
Global Governance ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Jacques Maritain ◽  
The Past ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Future ◽  
Cosmopolitan Democracy ◽  
Catholic Tradition

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.

Vernacular American Landscape: Methodists, Camp Meetings, and Social Respectability

1994 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Robins
Keyword(s):  
Cape Cod ◽  
Church Members ◽  
White Mountains ◽  
Martha's Vineyard ◽  
Home State ◽  
American Landscape ◽  
Camp Meetings ◽  
Martha’S Vineyard ◽  
Religious Landscape ◽  
The Church

In 1822, from his Conway home in the shadow of New Hampshire's White Mountains, one Dr. Porter surveyed the nation's religious landscape and prophesied, “in half a century there will be no Pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, Unitarians or Methodists.” The prophecy proved false on all counts, but it was most glaringly false in the case of the Methodists. In less than a decade, Porter's home state became the eighth to elect a Methodist governor. Should Porter have fled south into Massachusetts to escape the rising Methodist tide, he would only have been buying time. True, the citizens of Provincetown, Massachusetts, had, in 1795, razed a Methodist meetinghouse and tarred and feathered a Methodist in effigy. By 1851, however, the Methodists boasted a swelling Cape Cod membership, a majority of the church members on Martha's Vineyard, and a governor in the Massachusetts statehouse.

Restoring Four-Power Rights, Reviving a Confederation in 1989

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Elise Sarotte
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Social Order ◽  
Second World War ◽  
First Century ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
World War ◽  
German States ◽  
Divided Germany ◽  
Second World ◽  
Restoration Model

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