The Legal Consequences Of The De Facto Existence Essay

The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second

The English School (ES) of international studies is a modern and unique spectrum to the study of international relations (IR), because it is prominent, relevant and inclusive of the main elements in the other IR theories such as classical Realism, Neorealism, Marxism, Liberalism (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009), Globalization (Buzan, 2004), Humanitarianism and Positivism IR theories (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, p.2-3). The ES of IR is built on the notion of “international society”, in which the states are the primary actors, engaging, co-operating and conversing to produce joint strategies, interventions and arrangements which help to maintain their inter-relations and shared interests to resolve matters (Cornelia Navari, p. 1). The ES embraces the social aspect through dialogue between players on the international politics arena with recognition of sovereignty, solidarity, level of power and leverage, self-interests and competitiveness each state holds in the international realm. It is therefore not a system like most other IR theories but the methodology for contemporary international conversation (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009 p. 3) between two or more states when necessary within the global framework of laws, international institutions and customary aspects (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2009, pp.3-4). In the 1984 publication ‘The Expansion of International Society’, the classic ES definition is

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.

According to constructivism “The world of international relations is not just the world of material capabilities and materialistic opportunities it is also a social world”. Constructivists believe that actor states are occupied with both normative and material factors. They do not deny that the material world shapes their structure, but they believe that through reflections and discourse, actor states are malleable and influenced by each other. Constructivism thus deals with the process through which principled ideals become social norms. In being so, constructivism becomes a critical component for the international recognition of a state. This becomes crucial for actors, as the internationalization of social norms will ensure compliance over external pressure. Thus, democracy promotion can be subsumed under the socialization and internalization by actors. The persistence of democratic international institutions after the cold war as well as the mass identification of states as democracies and the absence of a strong alternative political ideology have contributed to a process of socialization promoting democratic cooperation. Therefore, after the Cold

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy

In “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law,” Antony Anghie discusses the concept of sovereignty and membership. He uses the term “family nations” to illustrate the relations of states. Anghie seeks to find the answer to how “new” Europe deal with the task of “how order is created among sovereign state.” To which he asserts that “special doctrine” of shared norms and values have been devised for purpose of determining states’ sovereignty. Hence, states have resorted to the development of an international law to help them govern and set out the criteria that are required in order to be acknowledged as a sovereign state. Anghie subsequently put forth that this “international law applied only to the sovereign states that composed the civilized “Family Nations.” This definition excluded third world countries who were deemed as being “non-civilized states” such as “non-European states.” This definition is problematic as it a very biased perception. The term sovereign state is arguably a social construct made by European as it is mainly of a Western European origin. Anghie acknowledges that states could be formally considered “sovereign” only if “they satisfied the criteria [for] membership in the civilized international society, they lacked the comprehensive range of power enjoyed by the European sovereigns.”

States and the global community as a whole. This journal was envisioned by two Master of

When the vagrancy law was out of the lawmaker reach, they found themselves back in the same problem they were in after slavery ended. Out of desperation to find a solution to their slave labor problem, the state took full advantage of the Tenth Amendment. The tenth Amendment “establishes a strong principle of states ' rights in the Constitution. Any powers not explicitly given to the federal government can be assumed to belong to the states, or directly to the people”. With this piece of legal document in their possession, they came up with the convict leasing program. Which gives state the right to lease prisoner to private business and people with large plantation to perform hard labor. It is because of this law our penal system in America has been heavily monetized by private companies today. Back then prisoner were taking to plantation, and now inmate are treated just about the same way.

enrollment that was just 51 in 1945 has ascended to 155. This demonstrates that there is almost a triple augmentation in the number of States. Every one of the States are anxious to affirm their enthusiasm for international relations. Along these lines, worldwide relations of today are truly international in character since every one of the States demand taking an interest actively. Hence, the extension and nature of international politics has totally changed. It has turned out to be profoundly perplexing and entangled.

“Recognition of juridically independent territorial entities and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states…no longer work” (Krasner 2004). Krasner writes that this is most definitely true in the case of collapsed and nations with poor governing bodies. Krasner asserts the belief that the these nations need a more hands on approach which leads him to two new approaches: de facto trusteeships and shared sovereignty arrangements. These two institutions would allow for international organizations or larger more established nations to aid in the improvement of these poorly governed or collapsed

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

Taking this into consideration, dealing with external activities of a state, international law has extensive latitude. In Article 38 (1) of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law are acknowledged: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) ... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law (36). Sources having a technical meaning related to the law making process and must not be confused with information sources, research sources or bibliographies on international law (35). Rules expressed and recognized by consenting states are referred to as treaties and/or conventions. Treaties are codified agreements established by consenting states as means of resolving a dispute or to recognize mutual interests. Since treaties are codified, they are favored over customary law; therefore, becoming a vital part of building a more stable foundation for international law. States are required to meet their international obligations as well as formulate efforts to

No global definition exists for states described as “fragile”, “failing”, or failed because they come in all shapes and sizes. Yet, countries that have failed at the basic responsibilities of governance and sovereign authority are generally lumped into this group. Fragile, failing, or failed states share similar characteristics including their inability to control their borders, loss of authority over insurgents, gangs, and warlords, and loss of legitimacy internally/internationally. Examples relevant today of countries that are fragile or failing, and on the path to failed status include Iraq and many of the Middle Eastern countries struggling to maintain their autonomy in the fight against ISIS. Other important indicators of failed states include:

Revisionist states are seen as “challengers” who wants a “new place or share for themselves in global society” proportionate with their power. Revisionist states are generally unsatisfied with their position in the international society. They have a wish to modify the rules by which affairs among countries work. Robert Gilpin who is amid pragmatist scholars, offers possibly the most precise discussion of revisionist and status quo positioning. He simplifies by breaking down the rules of the game into rather more operationalizable components: the distribution of power, the chain of command of status, rights and norms that oversee relations among states.