Many economists and politicians have blamed fixed exchange rate regimes for several crises taking place in developing countries after the 1980s. According to them, since the beginning of the 2000s, widespread implementation of flexible exchange rate regimes and high international reserves have prevented developing countries from experiencing similar catastrophic experiences. This interpretation seems to be misleading. We believe that even flexible exchange rate regimes with high international reserves do not have a magic to prevent a financial crisis. Although flexible exchange rate regimes and high international reserves might have played some positive roles in the relatively calm period of 2001-2008 / the main reason behind the calmness of this period is the fact that developing countries did not face a strong financial shock during this period. In the presence of &ldquo / safe havens&rdquo / , which implies existence of safe developed countries for financial capital to move into, flexible exchange rate regimes and the accumulated large reserves may not be adequate when a wave of financial shocks, as in the form of sudden stops and capital reversals, hit developing countries. Indeed, the absence of safe heavens and very low yields in developed countries eased the pressure on developing countries during the recent financial crisis of 2008-2009. If developed economies get their safe haven status back, developing countries might face new financial shocks. In this sense developing countries would experience new financial crises in this new period. We will elaborate on the possible conditions of these prospective financial crises in this thesis.

Thesis (M.S.W.)--University of Hong Kong, 1983.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bob Jones University, 1994. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 196-205).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-154).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-154).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bob Jones University, 1993. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 196-205).

Thesis (D.W.S.)--Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-105).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-154).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Bob Jones University, 1993. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 196-205).

O presente trabalho abordará uma das mais polêmicas abordagens da segunda metade do século XX sobre Direito Internacional, a Escola de New Haven, a qual, segundo o discurso tradicional dos internacionalistas, teria maculado a distinção entre direito e política, tornando aquele instrumento desta ou, em outra versão, teria resumido o direito à política. Apesar de as críticas à proposta formarem um coro consistente, este estudo visará a demonstrar que, para fugir dos pré-conceitos, a Escola precisa ser lida na sua integralidade, e não apenas pelos julgamentos negativos, pois somente no todo se encontra a explicação para as suas idiossincrasias. Para cumprir essa tarefa, a Escola será estudada sob três óticas: a Escola de New Haven por seus contextos, a Escola de New Haven por ela mesma e a Escola de New Haven por seus defensores e críticos. / The present study will discuss one of the most controversial approaches of the second half of the twentieth century, the New Haven School, which, according to the traditional discourse of internationalists, would have tainted the distinction between law and politics, making the former instrument of the latter, or, in another version, it would have summed up law into politics. Despite the strong criticisms against the School, this study aims to demonstrate that, to escape from the preconceptions, it would be necessary to read the School in its entirely, and not from the perspective of the critics, because this would be the best way to understand its idiosyncrasies. To fulfill this task, it will be studied the New Haven School from three points of view: New Haven School by its contexts, New Haven School by itself, and New Haven School by its advocates and critics.