Security and Sovereignty in the North Atlantic
The North Atlantic continues to be an area of international strategic and geopolitical significance, both regionally and globally. This is largely due to the growing importance of the entire North in the global economy and world politics. Since the Cold War period, there has been a significant shift in its security architecture, from geo-strategy and military security to comprehensive 'soft' security and international coo… show moreperation. Furthermore, there are strong currents of devolution and processes of sovereignty. As a result, there are new, independent states, such as Iceland, with limited capabilities and growing responsibilities, and micro-proto-states with self-governance, for example Greenland. The North Atlantic region is also characterized by Nordic small states, including the Kingdom of Denmark, middle powers like Britain and superpowers, notably Russia and the USA, with their legacies and maritime and economic interests, as well as a supranational entity, the European Union, with its growing interests and emerging policies for and in the Arctic region.
In the article the author given the state of modern political and legal system analyzes the concept and essence of sovereignty, and highlights its political and legal perspective. Special attention is paid to characteristic political and legal sovereignty and their interrelationships. The author formulates the definition of "sovereignty", "political sovereignty", "legal sovereignty".
This article deals with the conception of an Imperial Authority described in the “Siete Partidas” of Castilian king Alphonse the WIse (1252 – 1284) and its interpretation by a court lawyer of the Emperor of Spain Carl I (Carl V) called Gr. Lopez. The special attention is payed to the question of sovereignty, legal status of the emperor and of citizen’s right of insurrection.
On May 18-19, 2012, at the presidential retreat in Camp David in Maryland, U.S. president Barack Obama hosted the 38th annual G8 summit. The leaders discussed global economic growth, development, and peace and security. After less than 24 hours of face-to-face time among the leaders, they issued communiqué of only five pages. However, Camp David was a significant success. The leaders came together to effectively address the most pressing issues of the day while setting the direction for the summits that were to follow, including the summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Chicago, the G20 in Los Cabos, Mexico, and the Rio+20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. That success was propelled by several causes. The first is the set of strong global shocks were particularly relevant to a number of items on the agenda. This included the newest installment of the euro-crisis, spikes in oil and food prices, and the escalating violence in Syria. The second is the failure of the other major international institutions to address these challenges. The third is the club’s dedication to the promotion of democracy and its significance on issues such as the democratic transition in the Middle East and North Africa. The fourth is the high relative capabilities of G8 members, fuelled by the strength of the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the British pound. The fifth is the domestic political control, capital, continuity, competence and commitment of the leaders in attendance. Camp David saw several G8 leaders returning for their sixth or seventh summit and leaders with a secure majority mandate and control of their legislative houses at home. Finally, the constricted participation at the remote and secluded Camp David Summit, a unique and original advantage of the G8 summit style, allowed for more spontaneous conversation and interpersonal bonds. Together, these interconnected causes brought the G8 back, as a broader, bigger, bolder centre of effective global governance.
The post-Cold War Arctic has seen a transformation from military tension and a focus on national security to a concern for environmental and human security. As a result of this, the globalized Arctic has a high level of peace and stability, maintained by international cooperation between the Arctic states, northern indigenous peoples, sub-national governments and local actors. There has also been a shift from environmental protection to economic activities and, consequently, states easily trump other interests. Now, in the Arctic, these challenges require fresh thinking on a local and global scale. Regional wars, the 'war on terror', and economic crises have posed new threats to Northern security order.
The process of globalization undoubtedly contributes to the change and reduction of the scope of state sovereign powers. The list of threats to state sovereignty often includes global financial flows, multinational corporations, global media empires, and the Internet etc. At the same time (note that this point is debated surprisingly little and occasionally), since the end of World War II, increasingly more states have been willingly and consciously limiting their sovereign rights. And what is extremely important, many countries quite often give away some of their sovereign powers voluntarily. In the article, it is argued that the factor of voluntariness in reducing one's own authority is, no doubt, the most important in understanding the future of the state.
There are several reasons for such voluntariness and ‘altruism’, including the fact that such a restriction becomes profitable, as in return the countries expect to gain quite real advantages especially as members of regional and interregional unions. The transformation of sovereignty proceeds somehow almost in all countries. However, it is more characteristic of Western countries.
The paper focuses on the paradox embedded in conceptual logics of the Left and Right thought, that is the semantic amalgam of the concepts of sovereignty and legitimacy. Through the conceptual deconstruction of Carl Schmitt and Michelle Foucault theories we demonstrate the actual identification of sovereignty and legitimacy in political discourse. Since this identification forms the international legal framework, we perceive the power as legitimate one by recognizing the sovereignty. We reveal the similarities in power’s perception and conceptualization of the most radical representatives of the Right and Left political thought and explain it through the merge of legal and sacral in concept of sovereignty and perception of the power’s technic as independent political value.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.