This research takes the viewpoints of international regime, neo-realism, neo-liberalism and constructionism in analyzing the impact of international norms on state behaviors. The case study focuses on the impact of the international human rights norms on China¡¦s human rights issue. The finding of this research is that, with China¡¦s international socialization going deeper, China is eager to join and intervene in different international regimes and international organizations; China also regards international organization as the symbolic expansion of state authority. The main purpose of the international human rights norms is to promote democracy and protect human rights all over the world. In western perspectives, China can show its determination to obey international social norms and influnce its opinions about human rights by joining the international human rights norms. In China¡¦s points of view, human rights is a historic and domestic issue. The fundamental thought of the international human rights norms is from the traditional western culture; therefore China does not accept the whole idea of such international human rights norms. From the interaction between China and the international human rights norms, we can find out China totally recognizes the mainstream discourse of the international human rights norms. With the rise of China, China tries to manipulate rather than just yield (with some limits) to the international human rights norms.

Since the reform and opening up in mainland China from 1978, there is quite a dazzling performance in international trade, it has replaced Japan as the world's third largest trading nation in 2004. She has continued to maintain our largest export market and largest source of trade surplus position. Thus, there is a new term called¡yChiwan¡z, that is, China plus Taiwan ,which Will form a new emerging economies of Asia. Contracts of international sale of goods transaction as a starting point and core. People who contracting a contract with the contracting parties intend to make the realization of their own interests. Whereas a party breaches of contract may make the other party's interests had not been achieved . Compensation for breach of contract is the most common and important method of bearing civil liability now, while damages can be considered as the most important one among those forms of compensation. As a bridge between jurisprudence and practice of compensation for breach of contract, the scope of compensation could be regarded as the core of compensation for breach of contract to certain extent.

Thèse (doctoral)--Universite de Geneve, 1952. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [179]-187).

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, September 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): Daniel Moran, David S. Yost. Includes bibliographical references (p. 93-102). Also available online.

Title from title page of PDF (University of Missouri--St. Louis, viewed February 23, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 151-166).

The Bush Doctrine represents a paradigm shift in international security policy. Never had a foreign policy demonstrated such will through unilateralism, preemptive militarism, and a sense of exceptionalism. I argue that this shift in policy resists modern international order in an attempt to reestablish ancient modes of power and control. The international system maintains order through rules and institutions which are perceived to be legitimate because they have the consent of the governed. An example of this would be the UN, where member states engage in a democratic deliberation geared towards reaching understanding and consensus. However, order breaks down when a member state fails to recognize the legitimacy of a rule or institution. This was the case for the Bush Doctrine when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq without a UN resolution. The Bush Doctrine is the embodiment of neoconservatism, an intellectual movement influenced by the thoughts of Leo Strauss. What neoconservatism has inherited from Strauss was a fear of relativism. Strauss's critique of modernity holds that liberal society fosters moral relativism which, in turn, destroys the moral fabric of society. Strauss calls for a revival of antiquity, more specifically a Platonic design of society, where elites rule through the use of myths which provide society with moral truth and national purpose. Neoconservatism has projected Strauss's war on modernity onto the international level. The Bush Doctrine assumes its core democratic values to be universal and thus views consensus building as unnecessary. Rather, deliberating on 'right' may enlighten us to the conventional nature of morality. Therefore, neoconservatism works to reestablish ancient modes of control through the use of moral absolutes, where the practice of these values, consequentially, resists international order governed by liberal principles. As a result, neoconservative policies disrupt international order and isolate the U.S. from the modern world.

Šiame darbe yra analizuojama ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikcija pagal 1982 m. JT Jūrų Teisės Konvenciją. Ši Konvencija nustato planetos jūrų ir vandenynų naudojimo teisinį rėžimą. Todėl, siekiant suderinti valstybių interesus ir pasiekti kiek įmanomą platesni Konvencijos pripažinimą, Konvencijos nuostatos dėl ginčo sprendimo procedūrų suteikia valstybėms laisvę rinktis pageidaujamas ginčo sprendinio procedūras ir platų spektrą pasirinkimo galimybių. Tačiau dėl šios aplinkybės Konvencijos nuostatos tapo labai sudėtingos ir apibrėžti ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikciją tapo labai sudėtinga. Pirmiausia, Konvencijos nuostatos įtvirtina ginčo šalių savanoriško ginčo sprendimo prioritetą. Nepasiekus tokio sutarimo, pradeda veikti privalomos ginčo sprendimo procedūros, numatančios įpareigojančius sprendimus. Šiame darbe detaliai išanalizavus ginčo sprendimų procedūras, autorius konstatuoja, kad nors ir galima bendrais bruožais apibrėžti ginčo sprendimo organų jurisdikciją, tačiau tikslaus atsakymo dėl jurisdikcijos negalima pateikti abstrakčiai. Išvada, patvirtinanti darbo tezę yra tokia, kad į klausimą ar konkrečiu atveju atitinkamas teismas ar arbitražas turės jurisdikciją, gali atsakyti tik tas teismas ar arbitražas, išsamiai išnagrinėjęs visas bylos bei su bylos šalimis susijusias aplinkybes. / Present thesis aims to define jurisdiction of dispute settlement forums under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention embodies the regime-building conception for the two thirds of the planet, covered by the seas and oceans. Therefore in order to achieve high number of participating States in the Convention, it provides wide choice of dispute settlement procedures and freedom for the States Parties to choose their preferred means for dispute settlement. However this poses a problem of defining jurisdiction of the dispute settlement forums for the disputes under the Convention. First, it should be noted, the provisions of the Convention reflects the underlying view, that voluntary resolution of disputes are preferred. Where no such resolution has been reached, compulsory procedures, entailing binding decisions comes into play. Although the provisions of the Convention provides the framework to establish jurisdiction of the dispute settlement forum, the question whether the particular forum will have jurisdiction, could not be answered in abstract. Hence the author concludes that final answer whether particular dispute settlement forum under the Convention will have jurisdiction or not could be given only by that forum after thoroughly consideration on the merits of the dispute and legal relations of the dispute parties.

On its own, Kosovo has neither come to where it is today nor could it move any forward in the near future. The role of the international community and especially that of the EU is crucial in helping Kosovo overpass some of the current barriers and become a truly European state, instead of just another state in Europe. Therefore, from a state-building perspective, this paper strives to shed some light on the process of state-building in Kosovo and the role of the international involvement during this past decade.

The ability of organizations to learn---the process by which individuals learn from direct experience and translate that learning into organizational doctrine and memory---largely determines the course and outcomes of organizational policymaking. A set of hypotheses derived from research in political psychology, learning studies, and organization theory are employed to assess the ability of one international organization, the United Nations, to learn from its history of peacekeeping operations, as manifested in the thinking and behaviour of five Secretaries-General. A conceptual model linking processes of organizational learning, individual personality characteristics, and the nature of the international system is developed and operationalized. On the basis of earlier research on learning in international relations, personality, and organizational change, this study illustrates how organizational learning takes place, what factors are necessary for it to occur, and under what conditions it is translated into policy change. This thesis contributes to the literature, by applying research in these distinct fields to international organization, by testing organizational theories of learning in a detailed case study of the Secretaries-General and the evolution of U.N. peacekeeping, and by providing new insights into the nature of international organizational learning and policy change.

The purpose of this study is to examine the utility of a just war explanation in understanding Canada’s decision to enter into the war in Afghanistan. It examines Canada’s three phases of the war under the lens of jus ad bellum. The concentration is upon jus ad bellum’s core criteria of legitimate authority, public declaration of intent, just cause, last resort, reasonable chance of success and proportionality and then applies it to the three phases. By examining Canada’s international role, paying close attention to Canada’s association with the UN, NATO and its ally status with the United State are important explanations of why Canada entered into the Afghanistan war. This analysis strives to provide a holistic comprehension by exploring the utility of an ignored body of explanation and extrapolates from this analysis the contemporary use of jus ad bellum.