Symbolic Representations of ‘Sovereignty’ in Modern Political Discourse (Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Discourse From France, USA, Russia, and China)
This volume examines the complex international system of the twenty first century from a variety of perspectives. Proceeding from critical theoretical perspectives and incorporating case studies, the chapters focus on broad trends as well as micro-realities of a Post-Westphalian international system. The process of transformation and change of the international system has been an ongoing cumulative process. Many forces including conflict, technological innovation, and communication have contributed to the creation of a transnational world with political, economic, and social implications for all societies. Transnationalism functions both as an integrative factor and one which exposes the existing and the newly emerging divisions between societies and cultures and between nations and states. The chapters in this volume demonstrate that re-thinking fundamental assumptions as well as theoretical and methodological premises is central to understanding the dynamics of interdependence.
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.
Problems of a federative form of state acquired relevance in the Russian constitutional law studies in the 2nd half of the 19th century. In general, the federation was interpreted as a union of states (quasistates), in which its units were subject to the power of the federal government in certain areas (within the limits outlined by the federal constitution), while maintaining the autonomy in other areas. Thus, the origin of the federative state was seen as a process of strengthening the centripetal power in confederation, but not as a decentralization of a unitary state. At the turn of 19-20th centuries, the main problems of legal theory of federation became such issues as sharing sovereignty and legal status of the constituent units under the influence of German lawyers (especially G. Jellinek). At the same time, B. Chicherin and A. Gradovsky, who are outstanding Russian legal scholars of the 2nd half of the 19th century, did not consider the question of the legal status of the component units of the federation as a pivotal issue for federative theory. They considered federalism as a guarantee of the decentralization of public authority (A. Gradovsky) or fragmentation and distribution of government’s power in various political bodies (B. Chicherin). However, the decentralization conception of federative ideas contained in works of Gradovsky and Chicherin was relegated to the background of Russian constitutional law studies by union conception of the federative state with its problems of sovereignty and the legal status of the constituent units of the federation.
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.
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.