This paper seeks to discern the political factors that determine the results of negotiations in international cooperation. On the one hand, it makes a contribution to the broader theoretical debate on international regimes by combining regime theory and theories on globalisation into an integrated framework for the analysis of international policy results, or in this case treaties (theoretical objective). More generally, globalisation theory will help us understand why it has become important to initiate international cooperation, and regime theory to elucidate how these international cooperations emerge. To many observers, it is the large transnational corporations of the rich North, which have done best out of free trade. Through the huge influence they wield over governments at the WTO (World Trade Organisation), these corporations have won the freedom to move around the globe without restriction, making use of cheap labour, and locating wherever they can best tap into the largest and most lucrative markets. Suprastate global governance, such as the WTO and its TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) regime, is the response to deal with the reality in which we live - the globalised reality. But global governance comes to a price. States have lost their supreme sovereignty in the face of globalisation and the power of the globalised economy and transnational corporations. This paper presents evidence that it does not seem likely that the parties to both the TRIPs Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, in reality, can meet the obligations set out by these two agreements. Furthermore, this study points to those negative impacts the TRIPs Agreement poses to an enhancing of biological diversity and protection of indigenous knowledge.

Many scholars perceive state sovereignty as absolute, inviolable, indivisible, final, binding and stagnant. That perception emanates from inter alia political, social, cultural and environmental contexts of the modern era. Most literature converge that the doctrine of sovereignty first received official codification at the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporary international norms, particularly the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, are arguably an environment and culture of current global politics. With human rights and democracy having taken centre-stage in contemporary political discourses, sovereignty is affected and influenced by such developments in international politics. Hence the argument that globalisation, among others, has eroded, weakened and rendered the doctrine of sovereignty obsolete. This study, using Zimbabwe‟s Operation Murambatsvina as a case study, demonstrates that sovereignty is neither unitary in practice, nor sacrosanct; it is dynamic and evolves, thus, in need of constant reconfiguration. To this end, the study uses the qualitative research methodology. / Political Sciences / M.A. (International Politics)

This study examines the issue of compatibility of demo-conditionality with state sovereignty in international law.  From a practical perspective, it examines the state of the science with respect to the enforcement of demo-conditionality, in the context of the unique relationship between the European Union and the African,  Caribbean and Pacific countries. The practicality of any argument declaring certain norms to be compatible with state sovereignty rests on an assumption that it is possible to distinguish which norms are compatible from those which are not. The validity of such an assumption depends on whether a universal workable test with which to draw this distinction, and its accompanying requirements, has been or can be developed. Therefore, the starting point of this study is to investigate whether such a universal test exists, and if so, what its requirements are. The author reaches a legally appropriate conclusion as to which norms are compatible with the principle of state sovereignty and which not in the international legal system. Thereafter, an investigation is undertaken with regard to the legal premises invoked to justify the compatibility of the demo-conditionality with state sovereignty. To this end, two levels of analysis (also referred to here as two paths) are followed. The first level of investigation concerns the proposition for demo-conditionality’s being premised upon adherence to new treaty obligations governing the parties’ observance of democratic norms. In this context, the examination focuses on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 as the relevant provision. Other single-issue human rights instruments are also examined to establish whether they compliment Article 25. The second level of investigation explores the possibility for demo-conditionality's compatibility being premised upon obligations of State parties, which arise from the various development co-operation instruments adopted over the years. Here, emphasis is placed upon the question of whether or not these instruments advocate the inclusion of demo-conditionality in development co-operation between donors and recipients of aid. This study ultimately reaches a legally appropriate conclusion, at both levels of analysis, concerning demo-conditionality's compatibility with the principle of state sovereignty. At this juncture, a recommendation is made as to which of the two paths is the legally safer one for the pursuit of the demo-conditionality in development co-operation. On the question of what constitutes a more successful international approach to the establishment of democratic governments in the South, this study has undertaken a comparative analysis, making suggestions with respect to two models: the "Enforcement Model", based upon coercive enforcement measures, and the "Managerial Model", based upon an approach of co-operative dialogue. Finally, the study examines the state of the science with respect to enforcement of demo-conditionality, with a focus on the special relationships between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. This is designed to provide a degree of insight into the practical aspects associated with the enforcement of demo-conditionality.

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

<p>This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen / such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions.</p>

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 187-204). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Taking as its subject the Russo-Ottoman borderland during the period between the Treaty of Berlin (1878) and the start of the First World War (1914), and making extensive use of Ottoman archival documents covering this period, this thesis focuses on the ways in which the Ottoman state attempted to establish two types of boundary in order to ensure sovereignty over its territory. Firstly, there was a new geo-political border, the line dividing the Russian and Ottoman Empires at the juncture of north-eastern Anatolia and the southern Caucasus, created by the Treaty of Berlin. Secondly, there was what can be called a citizenship boundary, shaped by various laws and regulations defining the Ottoman citizenry. The main issues examined in respect of the first boundary are various types of human movement across this border and their control by the Ottoman state. Primary concerns regarding the second boundary revolve around the inclusion in and exclusion from the Ottoman citizenship of ethno-religious groups as a result of the Ottoman state's enforcement of the border. Our approach to studying how the citizenship boundary was established is two-fold, reflecting both local and state perspectives. The local perspective shows the actions of the inhabitants and travellers passing through this border region as shaped by their own day-to-day needs, livelihood patterns and pre-existing socio-economic relations; these resisted limitation by the logic of the sovereign state. The state perspective reflects the Ottoman view of Russia as the main threat to its border territories; this view led the Ottoman central authorities to perceive the entanglements and overlapping positions of its subjects in and with Russia as the cause of their ambiguous loyalties to the Ottoman state. In focusing on the specific policies and practices that the Ottoman state applied in order to deal with this ambiguity, two groups of people, Muslims and Armenians, are singled out. Notwithstanding the all-embracing state laws and discourse of legal equality, Ottoman border policy in respect of its Muslim subjects is shown to have differed greatly from that designed for its Armenian subjects. Therefore, the thesis offers a nuanced framework with which to understand Ottoman citizenship in the Russo-Ottoman border context, by revealing the normative and practical measures the Ottoman state employed to classify its Muslim and Armenian populations, thereby differentiating their status as subjects. This thesis - the first English-language work on the Russo-Ottoman border region during the late nineteenth century and pre-WWI period- offers a range of original insights into this borderland in particular and related issues more generally. It unfolds the details of everyday life and represents the local people as active agents - active, moreover, in relation both to the changing nature and effectiveness of the state's assertion of territorial authority and also to the differences between the two empires' policies and practices. Overall, the thesis focuses on the end-of-empire border politics and the issue of Ottoman citizenship not only from the perspective of macro-level political developments and central state power but also in terms of the peripheral specificities of administration and the movements and subjecthood choices of villagers. Thus, this thesis presents a new type of multi-faceted account of borderland development in which ethno-religious considerations came to inform a somewhat messy production of sovereignty in the context of the modernizing transition between empire and nation-state.

The purpose of this study is to analyze how the parties (USA, Great Britain, UN and the European Union) legitimize their intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina as seen from without the conceptions of sovereignty and intervention. USA and the UN have legitimized their intervention on security reasons. The American president, George W. Bush, claimed that democracies never engage in war with each other and that democracies were prosperous just because they were democracies. According to the president, that is why it is important to democratise the whole Balkan region to protect the international community from terrorism which grows in unstable and undemocratic states. UN resolutions claim that the situation in Bosnia is a threat to international peace and security and urged all state members to do everything they can for stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina. European Union and Great Britain saw the organized crime that spreads through Balkan as a major threat to Europe. To be able to deal with his problem, EU is asking for more cooperation among the European states. Bosnia is a member of the Council of Europe and is also involved in the Stabilisation and association process for South eastern Europe with the EU. The purpose of these memberships is to foster the political and economic development in Bosnia and lead to full membership in the European Union, but only if Bosnia fulfils all the reforms that EU demands. To get economic aid from the EU, Bosnian leaders are forced to reform and engage in regional cooperation. In the long run democratisation is the goal for all the parties, while security is the main issue at short-term. That is why the main concern for USA is for now the war on terrorism and organized crime for the EU. When signing the Dayton peace agreement, Bosnian leaders have agreed upon sharing sovereignty with the international community indefinitely. Dayton agreement calls also on all the parties to help Bosnia develop stable and democratic institutions and help the Bosnian leaders in theirs strive for peace. The international community is based on principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention. Sovereignty can be defined as the right for autonomy and the right for non-intervention. These principles are not as important today as they were during the Cold War. Globalisation and marginalisation has made it more acceptable to intervene and share sovereignty with other states and ganisations. That means that the traditional view on sovereignty as a mean for maintaining order and view on interventions as a threat to the sovereignty is less significant in modern times. The reason for this is that the definition on sovereignty and intervention changes to able to adjust its self to the political situation in the world. That is, definition on sovereignty and interventionwill differ from time to time.

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper analyses head of state immunity, a traditional rule of international law, in relation to the indictments by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 against the current Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir. It can be agreed that the doctrine of immunity in international law attempts to overcome the tension between the protection of human rights and the demands of state sovereignty. The statutes and decisions of international criminal courts make it clear that no immunity for international crimes shall be attached to heads of states or to senior government officials. However, the case against the Sudanese President, where the jurisdiction of the ICC was triggered by the UN Security Council‟s referral of the situation in Darfur to the Court, represents the first case where a serving head of state has, in fact, been indicted before the ICC. From this case, a number of legal issues have arisen; such as the questions where the ICC‟s jurisdiction over an incumbent head of state, not party to the ICC Statute, is justified, and the obligations upon ICC state parties to surrender such a head of state to the requesting international criminal court. This paper gives an analysis of these questions. / South Africa

À la lumière du droit international, la présente thèse a pour objet de proposer une voie médiane entre l'exercice des droits de l'État sur les ressources naturelles, découlés du principe de la souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles, et la protection des droits de l'homme de sa population (et notamment des populations locales et des peuples autochtones) affectée directement par l'exploitation de ressources naturelles. Ayant pour but de mettre en question la place actuelle du principe de la souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles et de contribuer à la sauvegarde des droits de l'homme dans ce cadre, il sera proposé une relecture contemporaine du principe de la souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles, consacré en droit international, il y a plus de cinquante ans, par la Résolution de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies 1803 (XVII) de 1962. Par le biais de cette relecture contemporaine, i! serait possible d'admettre que le principe de la souveraineté permanente sur les ressources naturelles peut conférer à État des droits relatifs à la jouissance de ressources· naturelles dans son territoire et, simultanément, des obligations relatives aux droits de l'homme dans le cadre de l'utilisation des ressources naturelles. / In the light of international law, this work aims at showing that there is an "intermediate way" between the exercise of State's rights over natural resources, issuing from the principle of State sovereignty over natural resources, and the protection of human rights of the State's population (especially local population or indigenous peoples) directly affected by the exploitation of natural ,esources. In order to question the current scope of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and to contribute to human rights protection in this context, our aim is to endorse a contemporary interpretation of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, recognized, more than fifty years ago, by the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 1962. By this contemporary interpretation, it would be possible to conceive that the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources can confer to the State rights related to the enjoyment of natural resources in its territory and, at the same time, can confer obligations to such State related to the human rights of its population in the context of use of natural resources.