The dissertation called "Belarusan Democratic Republic" (BDR) analyzes in broad terms progression of belarus national movement since beginning of 20th century until the end of the year 1918. In the strict sense of the word the aim of that thesis is to evaluate to what degree is possible to consider BDR as real republic at the date of its formation and to what degree could be operationable its government authorities. What criteria had confirmed or had contradicted the existence of BDR as a real state. BDR had been a certain culmination of belarus national movement. In the beginning of the dissertation we will take attention to origins of national movement, its developing in the frame of the tzar's Russia and during the first world war. Comparation of possibilities of national agitation at the time of separation of belarusan districts between two warenemies is also included in the first part. Following part, which we focus on, is explaining what conditions have been for proclamation of independence, what motivations and requests of belarusan patriots have been. There had been founded the state authorities of BDR by proclamation of independence: pre-parliament - Council of BDR and "government" - National Secretariat. Analyzing of volume of authenticity to state authorities had been realized according...

No description available.

This thesis analyzes the published commentary of editorial journalists regarding the division of Germany in twelve major newspapers of the Federal Republic of Germany in a period spanning from the final years of division to the immediate aftermath of the unification of the two German states. The study tracks editorial advocacy in response to East German leader Erich Honecker's Bonn visit in 1987 coupled with the intra-German policy efforts of the Social Democratic Party in opposition, which seemed to edge towards two-state neutralism; the wave of repression in the German Democratic Republic from late 1987 onward in the wake of Mikhail Gorbachev's reform programme, and the June 1989 visit of Mikhail Gorbachev to Bonn. Journalistic commentators' propagation of a form of constitutional patriotism as a Federal Republican identity will be examined. Responses to the East German Revolution as it developed in late 1989 are analyzed in detail, followed by an account of journalistic efforts to define the political-cultural parameters of united Germany between March 1990 and June 1991. After four decades, the post-war division of Germany had acquired a degree of normalcy. Journalistic commentators argued against any acceptance of division that also accepted the existence of the party-state dictatorship in the German Democratic Republic, insisting that the German Question was 'open' until self-determination for East Germans was realized. Nevertheless, throughout the period journalistic commentators argued in unison against solutions to division which would alienate the Federal Republic from its western alliance or put its established socio-political order at risk. Contemporary journalism propagated an image of the Federal Republic that was thoroughly defined by its post-war internalization of 'Western' value norms. This was most evident during the East German Revolution and the immediate aftermath, ostensibly the moment of greatest uncertainty about Germany's future path, when commentators became champions of continuity within the western alliance.

對於俄羅斯與烏克蘭而言，由於兩國之間長久以來極為密切的歷史與文化關係，因此始終難以接受蘇聯瓦解之事實。迄今，許多俄羅斯人依然視基輔為羅斯民族之出生地，且不認為烏克蘭是一個主權獨立的國家。更確切的說，俄羅斯人認為基輔羅斯乃是導引東正教與俄語進入俄國之發祥地。儘管俄烏之間具有不可割捨的兄弟之情，但當兩個民族或想像共同體對於其彼此疆界、文化等存有歧見時，則仍無法避免各種紛至沓來的紛爭問題。就克里米亞之黑海艦隊為例，顯示俄烏對於塞瓦斯托波爾城之想像共同體的重疊。同時，亦攸關俄烏兩國對於領土與心理疆界，產生必須且窘困的界定過程。 克里米亞半島素有黑海”鑰匙”之稱，不但是烏克蘭通往世界之大門，亦是各國經黑海進入東歐和亞洲的良港。由於其戰略位置之重要性，致使各種不同的政治勢必，紛紛介入克里米亞半島領土歸屬問題。蘇聯崩解後，克里米亞半島動盪不安的情勢，已造成黑海地區俄羅斯與烏克蘭雙邊關係之威脅，並儼然形成如同納戈爾諾－卡拉巴赫或阿布卡齊亞緊張衝突之溫床。克里米亞在蘇聯繼承國家之中，雖然尚不足以列入族裔衝突之範疇。但隨著反對國家之間領土紛爭的自決主張之聲浪，及自蘇聯時期懸而未決的軍事政治問題遺緒之情況下。致使克里米亞問題，成為俄烏兩國與國際緊張關係之焦點。 簡言之，克里米亞問題之根源在於其地區的人口分佈與地緣政治歷史。一九四四年，史達林以串通納粹敵國之罪名，將所有克里米亞韃靼人（約二十萬人）集體驅逐遷往中亞地區。截至一九八Ｏ年代末期，在近五十年漫長歲月中，克里米亞韃靼人不但其基本文化權及族群認同遭到否決，甚至於在蘇聯的人口統計資料中，未曾出現克里米亞韃靼人。蘇聯瓦解後，克里米亞始終受到兩方面重疊勢力的控制：其一、克里米亞共和國當局，與要求承認其歷史及領土權利的克里米亞韃靼人；其二、尋求獨立並要求回歸俄羅斯的克里米亞共和國親俄領導人士，及反對克里米亞分離主義之烏克蘭當局。這些勢力圍繞著一個相同的基本政治問題：誰擁有克里米亞半島之主權？就目前情勢而論，克里米亞韃靼積極份子要求承認其國家地位；然而，克里米亞境內及外在的敵對勢力，則頗不以為然。無庸置疑，歷史爭論與目前克里米亞的情勢發展，實乃息息相關。 / For Russians and Ukrainians, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been particularly difficult due to the extremely close historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Many Russians still view Kyiv as the birthplace of their nation（Rus’）and do not conceive of Ukraine as an independent country. Rather, they think of it as Kievan Rus’, the land that brought the Orthodox Christian religion and the Russian language to Russia. As relations between Russia and Ukraine reveal, however, problems can arise when two imagined communities, or nations, disagree over the boundaries（cultural or otherwise） that distinguish them. In the case of the Black Sea Fleet dispute, the imagined communities of Russia and Ukraine overlap at Sevastopol. Throughout Crimea’s complicated history, the peninsula’s strategic location on the Black Sea has made it a desirable military outpost and warm-water port, leading to territorial claims by a great variety of political forces. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the unstable situation in Crimea has threatened to turn the Black Sea region of Russia and Ukraine into a hotbed of tension similar to Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia. While the Crimea still cannot be listed among the numerous areas of violent ethno-political conflict in the Soviet successor states, it has recently become a focus of domestic and international tension, with conflicting self-determination claims voiced against a background of interstate territorial disputes and an unsettled legacy of military-political issues from the Soviet period. Simply put, the conflict over Crimea has its roots in the region’s demographic and geopolitical history. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population（by then some 200,000） was deported, mostly to Central Asia. For over forty years, Crimean Tatars were denied basic cultural rights and even an ethic identity; until the 1980s, Crimean Tatars never appeared in Soviet population statistics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea has been the object of two overlapping rivalries for control: first between the Crimean Republic authorities and the Crimean Tatars, who demand recognition of their historic and territorial rights to the peninsula; and second between pro-Russian leaders of the Crimean Republic, who want either independence or reunification of the peninsula with Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities, who oppose Crimean separatism and insist that Crimea remain an integral part of Ukraine. These movements revolve around the same basic political question: who has sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula? Presently, Crimean Tatar activists regard the Crimean ASSR as a recognition of Crimean Tatar statehood, while their opponents in the Crimea and beyond are convinced that the autonomous formation was purely administrative. The historical controversy is, of course, highly relevant to the present situation in the Crimea.

No description available.

O federalismo conhece, na experiência moderna, diversas formações e conformações, segundo a ideologia que o permeia e a necessidade histórica que o explica e que o implica. Embora não seja possível falar em um modelo puro ou autêntico de federalismo, há uma característica que lhe é essencial, cuja falta negaria sua própria razão de ser: a coexistência, sob o mesmo poder soberano, de duas ou mais sociedades políticas dotadas de estatalidade. A estatalidade é informada pela existência de um poder político de inaugurar determinada ordem jurídica. No Estado dito unitário, trata-se da soberania. No Estado dito federativo, a soberania convive com o poder político dos Estados federados - a autonomia federativa. Assim como a soberania, a autonomia federativa é um poder político constituinte, mas, ao contrário daquela, é também poder político constituído (competência), limitado pelo poder soberano. A autonomia federativa implica, ainda, a competência para constituir competências políticas e governamentais. Tais limites são postos pelo poder soberano na Constituição do Estado federativo, que define o grau de autonomia federativa. Esse poder tem sofrido oscilações ao longo das Constituições republicanas brasileiras, havendo, em todas elas, considerável disparidade entre a autonomia federativa formal (que o texto revela) e a autonomia federativa real (que se pratica), causada, sobretudo, pelo antagonismo dos interesses políticos e econômicos que determinam, em última instância, a descentralização político-governamental. A presente tese propõe a conceituação e a delimitação da autonomia federativa formal no Direito Constitucional brasileiro posto pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 / Federalism has had, in the modern experience, different frames and meanings, according to the ideology embedded into it and the historical necessity that explains and implies it. Although it is not possible to advocate a pure or authentic model for federalism, there is an essential feature, whose absence would deny its own reason for being: the coexistence, under the same sovereign power, of two or more political societies with statehood. Statehood is constituted by a political power capable to create a particular legal order. In so-called unitary states, such political power is the sovereignty. In federal states, the sovereignty of nation-state coexists with the political power of federated states - the federative autonomy. Like sovereignty, federative autonomy is a constitutional-political power. However, in contrast to the former, federative autonomy is also constituted political power (competence), limited by the sovereign power. The federative autonomy also implies the competence to establish political and governmental powers. These limits are set by the sovereign power in the Constitution of the federal state, which defines the degree of federative autonomy. Such power has oscillated along the Brazilian republican constitutions. All of them revealed considerable disparity between the formal federative autonomy (which the legal text provides) and the real federative autonomy (which is practiced), which was caused, mainly, by the antagonism between political and economic interests. Such interests ultimately determine political and governmental decentralization. This dissertation advocates the conceptualization and delimitation of formal federative autonomy in the Brazilian Constitutional Law set forth by the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

O federalismo conhece, na experiência moderna, diversas formações e conformações, segundo a ideologia que o permeia e a necessidade histórica que o explica e que o implica. Embora não seja possível falar em um modelo puro ou autêntico de federalismo, há uma característica que lhe é essencial, cuja falta negaria sua própria razão de ser: a coexistência, sob o mesmo poder soberano, de duas ou mais sociedades políticas dotadas de estatalidade. A estatalidade é informada pela existência de um poder político de inaugurar determinada ordem jurídica. No Estado dito unitário, trata-se da soberania. No Estado dito federativo, a soberania convive com o poder político dos Estados federados - a autonomia federativa. Assim como a soberania, a autonomia federativa é um poder político constituinte, mas, ao contrário daquela, é também poder político constituído (competência), limitado pelo poder soberano. A autonomia federativa implica, ainda, a competência para constituir competências políticas e governamentais. Tais limites são postos pelo poder soberano na Constituição do Estado federativo, que define o grau de autonomia federativa. Esse poder tem sofrido oscilações ao longo das Constituições republicanas brasileiras, havendo, em todas elas, considerável disparidade entre a autonomia federativa formal (que o texto revela) e a autonomia federativa real (que se pratica), causada, sobretudo, pelo antagonismo dos interesses políticos e econômicos que determinam, em última instância, a descentralização político-governamental. A presente tese propõe a conceituação e a delimitação da autonomia federativa formal no Direito Constitucional brasileiro posto pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 / Federalism has had, in the modern experience, different frames and meanings, according to the ideology embedded into it and the historical necessity that explains and implies it. Although it is not possible to advocate a pure or authentic model for federalism, there is an essential feature, whose absence would deny its own reason for being: the coexistence, under the same sovereign power, of two or more political societies with statehood. Statehood is constituted by a political power capable to create a particular legal order. In so-called unitary states, such political power is the sovereignty. In federal states, the sovereignty of nation-state coexists with the political power of federated states - the federative autonomy. Like sovereignty, federative autonomy is a constitutional-political power. However, in contrast to the former, federative autonomy is also constituted political power (competence), limited by the sovereign power. The federative autonomy also implies the competence to establish political and governmental powers. These limits are set by the sovereign power in the Constitution of the federal state, which defines the degree of federative autonomy. Such power has oscillated along the Brazilian republican constitutions. All of them revealed considerable disparity between the formal federative autonomy (which the legal text provides) and the real federative autonomy (which is practiced), which was caused, mainly, by the antagonism between political and economic interests. Such interests ultimately determine political and governmental decentralization. This dissertation advocates the conceptualization and delimitation of formal federative autonomy in the Brazilian Constitutional Law set forth by the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

No description available.

Die wêreld soos dit vandag bestaan, is gebaseer op die Internasionaalregtelike konsep van soewereiniteit. State het die bevoegdheid om hulle eie sake te reël, maar die ontwikkeling van die Internet as ’n netwerk wat globaal verspreid is, het hierdie beginsel verontagsaam. Dit wou voorkom asof die Internet die einde van soewereiniteit en staatskap sou beteken. ’n Geskiedkundige oorsig toon dat reguleerders aanvanklik onseker was oor hoe hierdie nuwe medium hanteer moes word. Dit het geblyk dat nuwe tegnologieë wat fragmentasie van die Internet bewerkstellig, gebruik kon word om staatsgebonde regsreëls af te dwing. Verskeie state van die wêreld het uiteenlopende metodologieë gevolg om die Internet op staatsvlak te probeer reguleer, en dit het tot die lukraak-wyse waarop die Internet tans gereguleer word, aanleiding gegee. Hierdie studie bespreek verskeie aspekte van regsbeheer in die konteks van die Internet, en bepaal daardeur hoe die Internet tans gereguleer word. Toepaslike wetgewing van verskeie state word regdeur die studie bespreek. Vier prominente state, wat verskeie belangrike ingrepe ten aansien van Internetregulering gemaak het, word verder uitgelig. Dit is die Verenigde State van Amerika, die Volksrepubliek van Sjina, die Europese Unie as verteenwoordiger van Europese state, en Suid-Afrika. Aspekte wat op Internasionaalregtelike vlak aangespreek moet word, soos internasionale organisasies en internasionale regsteorieë ten aansien van die regulering van die Internet, word ook onder die loep geneem. Die bevindings wat uit die studie volg, word gebruik om verskeie aanbevelings te maak, en die aanbevelings word uiteindelik in ’n nuwe model saamgevoegom’n sinvoller wyse van regulering van die Internet voor te stel. Aangesien die huidige studie in die konteks van die Internasionale reg onderneem word, word die studie afgesluit met ’n bespreking van kubersoewereiniteit, wat ’n uiteensetting is van hoe soewereiniteit ten aansien van die Internet toegepas behoort te word. Die gevolgtrekking is insiggewend — die ontwikkeling van die Internet het nie die einde van soewereiniteit beteken nie, maar het dit juis bevestig. / The world is currently structured in different states, and this is premised on the International law concept of sovereignty. States have the capacity to structure their own affairs, but the development of the Internet as a globally distributed network has violated this principle. It would seem that the development of the Internet would mean the end of sovereignty and statehood. A historical overview shows that regulators were initially unsure of how this new medium should be dealt with. It appeared that new technologies that could fragment the Internet, could be used to enforce state bound law. Several states of the world have used different methodologies trying to regulate the Internet at state level, and this led to the random way in which the Internet is currently regulated. This study examines various aspects of legal regulation in the context of the Internet, and determines how the Internet is currently regulated. Appropriate legislation of several states are discussed throughout the study. Four prominent states, which made several important interventions regarding the regulation of the Internet, are highlighted further. It is the United States, the People’s Republic of China, the European Union as the representative of European countries, and South Africa. Aspects that need to be addressed on International law level, such as international organizations and international legal theories regarding the regulation of the Internet, are also discussed. The findings that follow from this study are used to make several recommendations, which in turn are used to construct a new model for a more meaningful way in which the Internet could be regulated. Since the present study is undertaken in the context of the International law, the study is concluded with a discussion of cyber sovereignty, which is a discussion of how sovereignty should be applied with regards to the Internet. The conclusion is enlightening—the development of the Internet does not indicate the end of sovereignty, but rather confirms it. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LLD

Under which conditions do some nations and de facto state actors with relative power assert their statehood and independence? What factors should we focus on when we assess such cases? How much can we relate a nation’s choice and path to statehood and independence to its national security concerns? The aim of this case study has been to answer the questions asked above and explain why nations during some periods do not choose to declare independence and form their own state and during other periods they aim to do so. The case of the Kurdistan region of Iraq has been selected and studied both due the drastic regional changes in the Middle East since Saddam Hussein’s fall and the rise Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. During 2003-2005, the US invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam Hussein and destroyed the Iraqi army. Unlike the expectations that the Kurds would declare independence, they did not do so. However, 14 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein and establishment of the new Iraq, the Kurds aim to declare independence and form their own state. Hence, the puzzle is why not then and 14 years later? Inspired by realism, nationalist movement theory and rational strategic actor, three interrelated hypotheses have been tested and verified, which lay ground for a theoretical and explanatory model for this and similar cases within the fields of security studies and international relations. Process tracing has been used as an additional analytical tool in order to detect critical junctures and the chain of events that have produced the two different outcomes. The empirical material is mainly based on a fieldwork conducted in the Kurdistan region followed up by 12 individual qualitative interviews with a number of highly ranked Kurdish political and military officials including the President of the Kurdistan region, the Foreign Minister of the Kurdistan region, a senior Foreign and Security Advisor, three Peshmerga Generals and six members of both Kurdistan and Iraqi Parliaments. Building on the previous research, the findings of this study suggest that the choice and decision for becoming an independent and sovereign de jure state is closely related to a nation’s national security concerns and it is the same factors that causes a nation to declare/not declare independence during different periods of time. They are: (1) changes in power relations and access to a certain degree of indirect/direct external support and cooperation, (2) the existence/non-existence of national security threats and threat environments and (3) the rise of opportunity structures, strategic thinking and the ability to mobilize resources.