State civil disobedience: A republican perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danny Michelsen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
State Action ◽  
The Status ◽  
Right To Participation ◽  
Legitimate State ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Trade Laws

The article deals with the question of whether or under which circumstances it is reasonable to interpret some forms of illegal state action as civil disobedience and whether republican political theory can make a difference to the justification of those actions. It is argued that the theory of freedom as non-domination and the interpretation of the right to participation as the “right of rights” in a legitimate state provide a better justificatory scheme for cases in which developing or emerging countries break international trade laws for the purpose of protecting constitutional rights than Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience, because it takes the problem of power asymmetries in international relations and the status of social rights more seriously. However, these republican standards do not offer different practical solutions for a specific type of state disobedience, humanitarian intervention, because transferring the standards of non-domination and the fundamental right to participation to international relations would lead to a “maximalist” interpretation of human rights, which would undermine the function of such interventions as an instrument of last resort against oppressive governments.

From Property Rights to Liberty Rights: We the Corporations, A Review Essay

2021 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-340
Author(s):  
Laura Phillips Sawyer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
State Action ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
We The People

A long-standing, and deeply controversial, question in constitutional law is whether or not the Constitution's protections for “persons” and “people” extend to corporations. Law professor Adam Winkler's We the Corporations chronicles the most important legal battles launched by corporations to “win their constitutional rights,” by which he means both civil rights against discriminatory state action and civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (p. xvii). Today, we think of the former as the right to be free from unequal treatment, often protected by statutory laws, and the latter as liberties that affect the ability to live one's life fully, such as the freedom of religion, speech, or association. The vim in Winkler's argument is that the court blurred this distinction when it applied liberty rights to nonprofit corporations and then, through a series of twentieth-century rulings, corporations were able to advance greater claims to liberty rights. Ultimately, those liberty rights have been employed to strike down significant bipartisan regulations, such as campaign finance laws, which were intended to advance democratic participation in the political process. At its core, this book asks, to what extent do “we the people” rule corporations and to what extent do they rule us?

The Israeli Unfinished Constitutional Revolution: Has the Time Come for Protecting Economic and Social Rights?

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 299-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Rabin ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Interpretive Strategies ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article addresses the constitutional discourse surrounding the status of economic and social rights in Israel. It examines the principal interpretive strategies adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to the 1992 basic laws (in particular, with respect to the right to human dignity) and criticizes the Court's reluctance to apply analogous strategies to incorporate economic and social rights into Israeli constitutional law. Potential explanations for this biased approach are also critically discussed. The ensuing outcome is a constitutional imbalance in Israeli law, which perpetuates the unjustified view that economic and social rights are inherently inferior to their civil and political counterparts, and puts in question Israel's compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, encouraging recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the YATED and Marciano judgments, indicate growing acceptance on the part of the Court of the role of economic and social rights in Israeli constitutional law, and raise hopes for a belated judicial change of heart concerning the need to protect at least a ‘hard core’ of economic and social rights. Still, the article posits that the possibilities of promoting the constitutional status of economic and social rights through case-to-case litigation are limited and calls for the renewal of the legislation procedures of draft Basic Law: Social Rights in the Knesset.

scholarly journals Head of State: Function of the President of the Republic of Belarus

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 148-160
Author(s):  
I. G. Skorokhod
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The State ◽  
State Function ◽  
Organizational Forms ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legitimate State ◽  
State Body

According to the author of the paper, the head of state is not a position, not a title, not any state body, but the function of the President of the Republic of Belarus, along with the function of the guarantor of the Constitution, human and civil rights and freedoms. The function of the head of state is unchanged and is due to his position in the system of state authorities. This function manifests the nature and essence of the institution of the presidency, which cannot be reduced to specific actions or practices, therefore, it is implemented through the exercise of powers in various organizational forms. In this regard, the concept of “president”, unlike “head of state”, is not static, but dynamic, since the list of rights and duties of the President of the Republic of Belarus is open.Powers are unambiguous, substantive rights and duties of the President, legitimized from the functions and expressed in various organizational forms of his activities. At the same time, the characteristics of the President’s powers can only show the external side of his activities. The powers of the President, in contrast to the functions, are a variable value. The President through representative, legitimation, arbitration, control, rulemaking, personnel, integration, symbolist and ceremonial state powers carries out the function of the head of state.The function of the head of state is the superiority and precedence of the President over all state officials. In accordance with it, the idea of the Republic of Belarus is personified. This function allows the President of the Republic of Belarus to be the main public representative and act on behalf of the Belarusian state both within it and in international relations. This is the result of the state obtaining the status of a legitimate state, the continuity and interaction of state authorities, mediation between them. The constitutional function of the head of state makes it necessary for the President to have instruments of power-state bodies operating within this function.

scholarly journals Dano and Alimanovic: the recent evolution of CJEU caselaw on EU citizenship and cross-border access to social benefits

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-80
Author(s):  
Rui Lanceiro
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right

Since its inception, the concept of EU citizenship, as well as the rights and duties deriving therefrom, has evolved considerably, particularly in the area of social rights. ECJ case law has played a central role in defining the right of EU citizens to access social benefits in the host Member States, which meant a decrease in their degree of discretion to restrict the access to national social securities systems. However, the recent Dano and Alimanovic judgments represent a significant change from previous case-law, setting limits on the right of EU citizens to social benefits in the host Member States. The right of residence in another Member State appears to be dependent on the status of a worker citizen in accordance with the new methodology in order to avoid being an excessive burden on the social system of the host Member State. However, the new approach still leaves several unanswered questions. Were these decisions an attempt to address the “social security tourism” debate? Is the CJEU falling behind with regard to the protection of social rights? What will remain of previous jurisprudence?

scholarly journals Los derechos sociales ante la vulnerabilidad. Retos y problemáticas en un marco de flexibilidad y desregulación

2018 ◽  
pp. 143-167
Author(s):  
Asier MARTÍNEZ DE BRINGAS
Keyword(s):  
Social Rights ◽  
Paid Employment ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Conditions Of Possibility ◽  
Lost Potential ◽  
The Right

LABURPENA: Krisi ostea delakoak inoiz baino eragin handiagoa dauka eskubide sozialetarako aukeren eta premien baldintzetan. Testuinguru horretan, soldatako enpleguak funtsezko rola bete du eskubideak lortu eta horien babespean egoteko giltza gisa. Gainera, langile formalaren estatusa ez duten pertsonen bazterketa dakar eskubideen alorrean. Izan ere, eskubideak egituratuz joan den aztarna historikoak bereizi egin ditu, nolabait, «subjektu langilea» eta «eskubideen subjektua». Kontua da, baina, eskubideak eskuratzeko orduan eraginik handiena izaten ari den faktoreetako bat —enplegua, alegia—ezin dela inolaz ere izan eskubideon oinarri eta azalbide bakarra. Ikuspuntu horretatik, eskubide sozialen zentraltasun estrategikoa funtsezkoa izango da eskubideen interdependentzia apurtua berrezartzeko. Ikuspuntu horretatik, beharrezkoa da «existentziarako eskubide»aren kategoria berreskuratzea; hain zuzen ere, galdutako —edo aktibatu gabeko— gainerako eskubide sozialen ahalmena berreskuratzeko. RESUMEN: La llamada postcrisis afecta más que nunca a las condiciones de posibilidad y emergencia de los derechos sociales. En este contexto, el empleo asalariado ha jugado un papel fundamental como bisagra para adquirir derechos y estar protegido por estos. Implica, también, la exclusión de derechos para todas aquellas personas que no tienen el estatus de trabajador formal. La huella histórica con la que se han ido construyendo los derechos ha permitido una suerte de identificación entre el «sujeto trabajador» y el «sujeto de derechos». Los derechos, sin embargo, no se pueden sustentar ni explicar sólo desde uno de los factores que más está influyendo en el acceso a los mismos: el empleo. En este enfoque, la centralidad estratégica de los derechos sociales va a resultar fundamental para restaurar la interdependencia fracturada de los derechos. Desde esta mirada, resulta fundamental recuperar una categoría como el «derecho a la existencia» para reestablecer la potencialidad perdida, o no activada, del resto de derechos sociales. ABSTRACT: The so-called post-crisis affects more than ever the conditions of possibility and emergence of social rights. In this context, paid employment has played a fundamental role as a hinge to acquire rights and be covered by them. It also implies the exclusion of rights for all those who lack of the status of formal worker. The historical trail upon which rights have been built has allowed a sort of identification between the «working subject» and the «subject of rights». Rights, however, cannot be supported or explained only from one of the factors that is most influencing access to them: employment. In this approach, the strategic centrality of social rights has to be essential to restore the fractured interdependence of rights. From this perspective, it is essential to recover a category as the «right to existence» to reestablish the lost potential, or not activated, of the rest of social rights.

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-489
Author(s):  
Roland Paris
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
State Action ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractA principal theme of international relations scholarship following the Cold War was the apparent erosion of state sovereignty caused by globalization's integrative effects and the proliferation of international institutions and networks. In recent years, however, scholars have noted a reverse trend: the reassertion of traditional, or Westphalian, state sovereignty. By contrast, I highlight another recent trend that has gone largely overlooked: the reaffirmation of older “extralegal” and “organic” versions of sovereignty by three of the world's most powerful states—Russia, China, and the United States. After tracing the genealogy of these older concepts, I consider how and why they have gained prominence in the official discourse of all three countries. I also explore the implications of this shift, which not only illustrates the importance of “norm retrieval” in international affairs, but also raises questions about the foundations of international order. Contrary to Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes the legal equality of states and the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, the extralegal and organic versions offer few constraints on state action. If anything, they appear to license powerful states to dominate others.

Between Deference and Defiance: Hierarchical Status Roles and International Conflict

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Wolf
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
International Conflict ◽  
The Status ◽  
Role Based ◽  
Defiant Behavior ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Status ◽  
Hierarchical Status

Abstract According to recent international relations research, an actor's status ultimately depends on commonly accepted ratings of that actor's valued attributes (e.g., wealth, competence, culture, or coercive capabilities). This manuscript argues that asymmetric reciprocal roles (leaders versus followers, patrons versus clients, teachers versus students, etc.) constitute another, even more fundamental, kind of stratification that can provoke far more acrimonious status conflicts. Such role-based hierarchies remain stable as long as subordinate actors deem their superiors entitled to deferential treatment. Disputes over asymmetrical roles arise when subaltern actors begin to question the right of dominant actors to command, or when actors fear that co-equal parties are trying to establish their social dominance through a series of faits accomplis. In such circumstances, defiance is the status tactic of choice because it directly undercuts disconcerting patterns of deference. By systematically theorizing defiance in status hierarchies, the paper provides an overdue addition to the literature on the breakdown of cooperation and the dissolution of order. It first sketches a theory that lays out the motives and forms of defiant behavior in international status disputes and then illustrates its value in explaining Russian and Greek resistance to domineering Western “partners.”

scholarly journals Origin, establishment and development of the idea of self-determination of peoples

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-73
Author(s):  
Azer Kagraman Ogly Kagramanov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is the examination of evolution of the idea of self-determination of peoples based on the fundamental works of the Russian and foreign scholars, thinkers of the antiquity and modernity. The author considers the transformations experienced by the principle of self-determination at various historical stages of development; as well as builds a corresponding systems of the development cycles. The conclusion is made that after conception of the idea of self-determination, the colonial powers viewed this concept as ethical, seeing the threat to legitimacy of the established order. Therefore, throughout almost a century, the leading countries refused to include this right into the corresponding international and domestic documents. The main conclusions are as follows: after consolidation of the principle in the Charter of the United Nations, it became the foundation for the emergence of news states and destruction of the colonial world; the principle served as a leitmotif for the development of human rights and international relations, but at the same time became a threat and challenge to the territorial integrity; wars between the countries are replaced with the civil and interethnic conflicts; the world is captured with such phenomena as state nationalism that subsequently grew into extremely radical forms, such as fascism and Nazism; the modern international law actively promotes the two competing principles – territorial integrity and self-determination; in modern world, the right to self-determination is not limited by peoples under the colonial past – there occur new forms of self-determination that threaten the existence of sovereign states. Uncertainty of the status of the newly emerged states formations serves as the source of domestic and international tension, which inevitably leads to intergovernmental clashes and negatively impacts geopolitical situation in separate regions and in the world as a whole.

7 Art. 6 GG: Marriage and Family

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bumke Christian ◽  
Voßkuhle Andreas
Keyword(s):  
Social Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Marriage And Family ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Family ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Interference ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter deals with Art. 6 of the Grundgesetz (GG), which guarantees protection for marriage and the family. Art. 6 GG protects marriage and the family from state interference, and also creates a special principle of equality. Paragraphs 4 and 5 create constitutional rights for mothers and children born outside of marriage. The chapter first considers the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court concerning the scope of protection for marriage and the family, including issues concerning discrimination against same-sex relationships, freedom to marry, marital cohabitation, the right to divorce, and the right to spousal maintenance. It then examines the constitutional rights of parents and the social rights of mothers before concluding with an analysis of the social rights of children born outside of marriage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document