scholarly journals The Events of 1956 in Hungary and the UN Position

2017 ◽  
pp. 486-498
Author(s):  
Ihor Likhtej ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Hungarian Revolution ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Great Merit

This article covers the influence of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution on international relations, in particular on the official position of the United States, Great Britain and France. It analyses the process of discussing “the Hungarian question” at the UN Security Council and at the emergency General Assembly session. The author emphasizes the significance of the activities of the special commission for investigating events in Hungary established by the UN General Assembly in autumn 1956, as well as the great merit of the Danish diplomat Bang Jensen in investigating and formulating the text of commission’s report, which covered the struggle of the Hungarian people for freedom.

The Politics of Legitimation in International Organizations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Binder ◽  
Monika Heupel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Linear Regression ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Member States ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Un General Assembly

Abstract To govern effectively, international organizations (IOs) crucially depend on legitimation and support from their member states. But which states claim legitimacy for IOs, which challenge their legitimacy, and why? We address this gap in the literature by analyzing the legitimation strategies that states use in institutionalized discursive spaces within IOs. Specifically, we examine how United Nations (UN) member states seek to legitimate or delegitimate the UN Security Council in public debates in the UN General Assembly. We formulate a set of hypotheses that link specific state characteristics to evaluative statements on the Council’s legitimacy. We test these hypotheses on an original dataset using a non-linear regression model. In line with our theoretical expectations, we find that legitimation strategies are driven by a state’s membership of the Council and by its attitudes towards the United States. Contrary to our theoretical expectations, economically powerful states and states that are willing to delegate authority to supranational organizations are more likely to challenge the Council’s legitimacy. Furthermore, we provide evidence that states’ legitimacy claims resonate among fellow states, that is, among the Council’s primary audience. More generally, our findings suggest that making public claims about the Security Council’s legitimacy is not an empty diplomatic exercise, and that states do not make these claims at random. Legitimation strategies follow discernible patterns that can be explained by specific state characteristics.

The Study of International Relations in Great Britain: Further Connections

1986 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene M. Lyons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Political Experience

Aside from language, students of international relations in the United States and Great Britain have several things in common: parallel developments in the emergence of international relations as a field of study after World War I, and more recent efforts to broaden the field by drawing security issues and changes in the international political economy under the broad umbrella of “international studies.” But a review of four recent books edited by British scholars demonstrates that there is also a “distance” between British and American scholarship. Compared with dominant trends in the United States, the former, though hardly monolithic and producing a rich and varied literature, is still very much attached to historical analysis and the concept of an “international society” that derives from the period in modern history in which Britain played a more prominent role in international politics. Because trends in scholarship do, in fact, reflect national political experience, the need continues for transnational cooperation among scholars in the quest for strong theories in international relations.

scholarly journals What Determines Foreign Policy in Latin America? Systemic versus Domestic Factors in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2008

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Octavio Amorim Neto ◽  
Andrés Malamud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Political ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
Systemic Variables

AbstractIs it domestic politics or the international system that more decisively influences foreign policy? This article focuses on Latin America's three largest powers to identify patterns and compare outcomes in their relations with the regional hegemon, the United States. Through a statistical analysis of voting behavior in the UN General Assembly, we examine systemic variables (both realist and liberal) and domestic variables (institutional, ideological, and bureaucratic) to determine their relative weights between 1946 and 2008. The study includes 4,900 votes, the tabulation of 1,500 ministers according to their ideological persuasion, all annual trade entries, and an assessment of the political strength of presidents, cabinets, and parties per year. The findings show that while Argentina's voting behavior has been determined mostly by domestic factors and Mexico's by realist systemic ones, Brazil's has a more complex blend of determinants, but also with a prevalence of realist systemic variables.

The American Society of International Law 1906–1956

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Jay Treaty ◽  
American Society

The founding fifty years ago of a society to promote the establishment of international relations on the basis of law and justice was a step marking the progress that had been made at the beginning of the century in the age-long efforts to find a means of substituting reason for force in the settlement of international controversies. At that time arbitration was generally regarded as the most suitable and acceptable substitute for war. Great Britain and the United States had both heavily contributed to that conviction first by submitting to arbitration under the Jay Treaty of 1794 the numerous misunderstandings that developed in carrying out the provisions of the Peace Treaty of 1783, and then three-quarters of a century later in submitting to arbitration by the Treaty of Washington of 1871 the dangerous Alabama Claims dispute following the American Civil War.

The UN Statehood Bid

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noura Erakat
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Palestinian Authority ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Un General Assembly

This chapter focuses on the United Nations's Palestinian “statehood” bid starting in 2011. In May 2011, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)/Palestinian Authority (PA) announced that it would seek membership as a state within the UN. The UN statehood bid would alter the PLO's status as a nonmember observer entity, conferred upon it by the UN General Assembly in 1974. While the benefits of UN membership, or in the alternative, a UN upgrade, are manifold, none of them guarantee Palestinian self-determination or freedom from Israeli control. The chapter suggests that this statehood bid could have been a pivot away from complete reliance on the United States to deliver independence and a return to multilateralism that positioned the world superpower as part of the problem rather than the solution. However, the promise of multilateralism, signaled by Palestinians in 2011, has not been realized. The Palestinian leadership has responded to the ever-diminishing potential of the US-brokered peace process with incremental steps into international forums.

Kashmir

2020 ◽  
pp. 54-99
Author(s):  
Francine R. Frankel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Northern Border ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
Muslim Majority ◽  
Azad Kashmir

India’s suspicion of US motives set in during the first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir in 1950, after the Hindu maharaja of Muslim majority Kashmir acceded to India. Great Britain, considering that Kashmir should join Muslim-majority Pakistan and that India-Pakistan cooperation was essential to Commonwealth defense, feared India could exercise its legal right to self-defense after tribesmen aided by Pakistan invaded across the northern border. Foreign Office records reveal how the British acted behind the scenes in the UN Security Council to block a discussion of India’s request to remove the tribesmen from Azad Kashmir as the condition for holding a plebiscite. The United States, influenced by the British, appeared to Nehru as the power behind the hostility toward India, while seeking a Cold War bastion in Kashmir.

General Arbitration Treaties

1912 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-600
Author(s):  
Richard Olney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The United States ◽  
Joint Commission ◽  
Present Position ◽  
The Past ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The World ◽  
The Face

It is undoubtedly desirable, in the interest of the arbitration of international controversies, that at the next Hague Conference a form of treaty should be presented which, while covering all differences between states, shall steer clear of the difficulties which in the past have wrecked important treaties of that character. It is a matter in which the United States may be expected to lead, having by precept and example so often distinguished itself as a pioneer in movements tending to do away with war between nations. Facts must be looked in the face, however, and it is apparent that the present position of the United States with reference to this subject is not so advantageous as could be wished. No two countries of the world are so favorably situated for the purposes of an arbitration treaty between them inclusive of all differences as are Great Britain and the United States. Through racial, social, and commercial ties ever knitting them closely together, war between them has become almost unthinkable. Yet two trials for such a comprehensive treaty have failed and the official position of the United States to-day seems to be that there is a class of questions which is necessarily to be excluded from any general arbitration treaty. The class covers controversies described as affecting “the vital interests, the independence, or the honor” of the parties. In the English-American treaty of 1897 such controversies were disposed of by sending them to arbitration but so constituting the arbitral court that an award must have the assent of the representatives of the losing party or of a majority of them. In the treaty of 1911 it was sought to meet the difficulty by a joint commission of inquiry empowered to investigate and decide whether a question was or was not arbitrable and should or should not be arbitrated. But neither plan proved to be acceptable to the United States acting under the treaty-making power vested jointly in the President and Senate.

scholarly journals The Sudanese Women’s Advocacy Mission to New York and Washington DC

1970 ◽  
pp. 72-75
Author(s):  
Marie-Christine Aquarone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Movement ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Peace Negotiations ◽  
The World ◽  
Un General Assembly

In June 2000, eight women from the war-torn country of Sudan traveled to the United States to present their message to the world. They wished to say that they were tired of the 45-year-old Sudanese civil war and they wanted to announce that they had formed a peace movement and were calling for an active role in the peace negotiations, to help end the war. Their discussions with United Nationsofficials and high-ranking officers of agencies and nongovernmental organizations coincided with the Beijing +5 conference, a conference on women’s rights convened by the UN General Assembly that was attended by more than 10,000 female delegates from 180 countries.

Why U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem Could Be Contrary to International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 72-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Kattan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Arab League ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The City ◽  
The U.S

President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. embassy to the city has been universally condemned, as it is contrary to a well-established rule of international law stipulating that states must not recognize the fruits of conquest. While the United States chose to exercise its right of veto in the UN Security Council to block a resolution criticizing the presidential decision, the remaining members of the council, including close U.S. allies, criticized it. Similarly, the UN General Assembly, the European Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have all passed strongly worded resolutions saying that they would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders, including in and around Jerusalem. This paper examines the legal standing of the U.S. decision in light of previous positions that the United States has historically adopted or endorsed.

1. Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of Somaliland under Italian Administration, adopted by the Trusteeship Council January 27, 1950.

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-356
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
United Nations ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Future Status

Whereas, Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter of the United Nations provide for an International Trusteeship System;Whereas, by Article 23 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy, signed in Paris on 10 February 1947, Italy renounced all right and title to the Italian territorial possessions in Africa;Whereas, under paragraph 3 of Annex XI of this Treaty, the General Assembly of the United Nations was requested to make recommendations regarding the future status of the territories referred to in Article 23 thereof;Whereas, under paragraph 3 of Annex XI of this Treaty, the Governments of France, of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the United States of America agreed to accept the recommendation made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in this matter;

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document