Search Results

This introductory chapter sets out the goals for this study amidst ongoing debates on the international dimensions of democratisation. It outlines the state of academic thinking on democracy’s relationship to international security concerns, and the interests of international investors. It highlights democracy’s strategic and economic utility, and calls for a more composite picture of its international dimensions.

This chapter explores the globalization school's predictions for the pursuit of security. First, it examines the various strands of the demise of the state argument, including those of hard globalization proponents, soft globalization proponents, and commercial liberals, as well as two other groups with claims that are compatible with our definition of globalization, democratic peace theory, and constructivist arguments about the spread of globalized political norms. It then culls out of these positions a set of common propositions about the effect globalization is likely to have on the way states pursue security. It identifies macro-level propositions about the level of interstate war, aggregate defense spending, the prominence of transnational terrorism, and the role of multilateral institutions at the international system level. It then identifies state- and region-specific propositions about the national security strategies and architectures of individual states.

Describes the interrelation between security and democratic consolidation as a process in specific national and regional contexts. The analysis combines a systematic approach to hypothesis building with an empirically based discussion, and seeks to place developments in Eastern Europe into a wider analytical framework. The chapter argues that the relationship between security and democracy in Eastern Europe is based on the concept of dual conditionality. The relationship is a reciprocal one in which security conditions democratic development as much as democratic consolidation conditions regional security and peace building. Finally, the chapter discusses several caveats concerning the interrelation between security and democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe.

International security is undergoing a particularly radical transformation: the New Security Dilemma (NSD). States and people are no longer most threatened by interstate wars — that is, wars between nation-states — as was the case in the “modern” state system of the 17th through 20th centuries. Violent conflict today overwhelmingly involves civil wars, ethnic and religious conflicts, cross-border wars, transnational terrorism, and the like. Indeed, attempts by states to provide international security through traditional state-based military modes and mechanisms are proving increasingly counterproductive in today's environment of complex economic interdependence, multiculturalism, and asymmetric power relations. At the same time, some states are increasingly prioritizing interdependent economic development, the promotion of global governance (despite its structural weaknesses), and “pooled sovereignty” rather than national sovereignty, national interests, autonomy, and the threat of defection. This chapter argues that the Traditional Security Dilemma is being subsumed in a wider and more complex NSD, in which the roles of a more pluralistic universe of social, economic, and political forces are challenging the capacity of states as such to provide security.

This chapter assesses the evolution of international standard setting in financial markets by examining the characteristics of the various international bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions, that are involved in international standard setting. Topics discussed include international financial institutions, supervisory structures for financial conglomerates, the Financial Action Task Force, and financial crises from the 1990s and onwards.

The place and purpose of trusteeship in the post‐Second World War world order aroused passions and suspicions that were no less pronounced than those which threatened to disrupt the peace negotiations at Versailles two decades earlier, and these tensions, which divided the US and Britain in particular, emanated from a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of trusteeship and its relation to the future of empire in world affairs. British commentators on empire tended to interpret the idea of trusteeship in the context of an imperial tradition that dated back to Edmund Burke's interest in the affairs of the East India Company, invoking trusteeship as a principle against which to judge colonial administration and, therefore, understood the tutelage of dependent peoples as a justification of empire. Americans, who were born of a very different colonial and political experience, were a great deal less inclined to see trusteeship as a justification of empire than as an alternative to the perpetuation of empire. Interrogates the claims that structured the terms of this debate, how they shaped the purpose of trusteeship as contemplated in the Charter of the UN, and the ideas upon which the anti‐colonial movement seized in order to destroy the legitimacy of trusteeship in international society. There are five sections: The Atlantic Charter and the Future of Empire; The Reform of Empire; Trusteeship and the Charter of the UN; The End of Empire; and Human Equality and the Illegitimacy of Trusteeship.

This chapter deals with relations with the outside world and their impact. It shows how the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) occupied the centre stage in the International Accounting Standards Committee's (IASC) aims and deliberations between 1987 and 2000. A first phase in the relationship between the two organizations ended in a difficult period during the second half of 1994. The relationship was then set on a new footing in 1995, and a more promising phase began. The board's standards were registering very little impact in the developed, industrialized countries. The leaders felt it was essential that the board establish a closer relationship with securities market regulators, national standard setters, and major preparers. They also came to believe, with a nudge from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that real progress towards international harmonization would not occur until most of the optional treatments in the board's standards were removed.

This chapter discusses the lead up to the ‘Big Bang’ and its effects––the Big Bang refers to the abolition of fixed commissions and the single capacity on 27 October 1986, both of which had been at the centre of London Stock Exchange thinking for most of the twentieth century, and certainly since 1945. This move followed the abolition of exchange controls in 1979, and the associated far‐reaching changes on the securities market. The path from one to the other is traced, including the loss of the Stock Exchange's monopoly position within the securities market in January 1986. The new ways and roles that the Stock Exchange was forced to adopt during the early 1980s are described, including its merger with ISRO (International Securities Regulatory Organisation), its failure to merge with LIFFE (London International Financials Futures Exchange), expansion of securities traded on SEAQ (Stock Exchange Automated Quotations) international, and its opening of membership to global players. The last section of the chapter discusses further changes to the Stock Exchange that occurred to reflect the completely changed nature of its membership, including alterations in the degree of control and supervision exercised, and the ending of the Compensation Fund.

This epilogue discusses the European powers' humanitarian interventions from the interwar period and since 1989. It first considers the massacres, atrocities, and other abuses committed during World War I and World War II before looking at interventions during the Cold War (1945–1989). It then compares instances of humanitarian intervention and nonintervention since 1989 with those of the nineteenth century. It also examines humanitarian intervention as a means of addressing threats to international peace and security, nineteenth-century humanitarian interventions as ex post facto events with unexceptional outcomes and unintended consequences, and the transformation of intervention from one focused on short-term rescue to one focused on long-term protection of victims of massacres and atrocities. Finally, the chapter explores public opinion regarding humanitarian intervention, the emergence of “new humanitarianism,” and the United Nations's The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) document.

This chapter focuses on the legal issues of the Security Council's actions in favour of human rights. In particular, it addresses the problem of the qualification of human rights violations as a threat to international peace within the meaning of Chapter VII of the UN Charter: Was the Council competent to broaden the notion of a threat to the peace to include human rights violations? Is the Council authorized to act in internal matters of a state? Can the Council hold responsible for human rights violations not only states but also de facto governments and non-state entities? Who can legally review such qualifications made by the Security Council? The chapter distinguishes five major categories of measures applied by the Council in order to enforce fundamental norms of international human rights and humanitarian law: the sanction of nullity and non-recognition, non-military measures, in particular economic sanctions, military force, measures in the context of criminal law, and monitoring and fact-finding.

Fragile states are said to threaten international security by providing hospitable environments for transnational crime. “Failing states are inextricably linked to the increasing power of international criminal networks and ‘illegal’ economies,” the United Kingdom's Prime Minister's Strategy Unit contends. This connection makes intuitive sense: Weak regimes may lack the capacity or will to combat crime, while the corruption, insecurity, and weak rule of law found in many fragile states play to criminals' advantage. This chapter evaluates the connection between state weakness and transnational crime, paying special attention to six sectors of crime: narcotics production and trafficking; human trafficking; small arms trade; money laundering; environmental crime; and maritime piracy. It argues that the relationship between transnational crime and weak states is more complicated than popular mythology suggests.

The six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) possess the authority to establish and utilise subsidiary organs in the attainment of their Charter ohjectives. The establishment and termination of UN subsidiary organs is governed by a legal framework consisting of the relevant provisions of the UN Charter and those parts of the general law of international institutions that relate to this activity, while the lawfulness of the acts of subsidiary organs will depend on the subsidiary complying with the legal mandate conferred on it by the principal. The former deals with the competence of principal organs to establish and terminate subsidiary organs while the latter is concerned with the subsidiary remaining within the bounds of its delegated mandate. This chapter looks at those elements of the general legal framework that govern the processes of establishment and termination of UN subsidiary organs.

With the creation of the United Nations (UN) in 1945, the UN Security Council was envisaged to play a central role in the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security. To this end, UN Member States agreed in Article 24 of the Charter to confer on the Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The specific powers which the Charter gives the Council to achieve this objective are contained in Chapter VII. However, the Security Council has had to delegate its Chapter VII powers to entities that have an enforcement capacity which the Council at present lacks: in particular, it lacks a military force which it can use directly to carry out military enforcement action. This chapter constructs the legal framework governing the process of delegation of Chapter VII powers by the UN Security Council.

This chapter seeks to compare how different jurisdictions allocate regulatory powers over their securities markets. Rather than seek to present detailed descriptions of how any specific jurisdictions allocate such regulatory responsibilities, three surveys on the topic, covering various jurisdictions and institutions, are described and evaluated. The chapter is composed of four sections. The first two summarize key results from two surveys that examine the regulation of securities markets, and how regulatory powers over such markets are allocated—one prepared by the World Federation of Exchanges in 2004, and the other by the International Council of Securities Associations in 2006. The third section presents the results of a survey undertaken in 2006 for this book on how regulatory authority is allocated in eight jurisdictions with large securities markets. Conclusions are presented in the last section.

This chapter begins by discussing global legislation by the UN Security Council. Specifically, Resolution 1373 on the subject of international terrorism, and then most importantly for counterproliferation, Resolution 1540 on the subject of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). These resolutions mark a profound shift of the Security Council as global legislator. What is new is the mandate of obligation for all states to counter both terrorism and proliferation of WMD, as global threat to international peace and security, under the authority of Chapter VII, unconfined to any specific event or state(s). The chapter then assesses whether Security Council action by way of a counterproliferation mandate can actually improve international security.

This chapter analyses how the role of the UN Security Council in the promotion and protection of human rights developed since 1945: an organ not endowed with any specific powers in the field of human rights became the ‘centre-piece of the human rights protection system’ of the international community. It describes the place of the Security Council in the framework of the UN human rights institutions, and how the Council came to regard human rights violations as a threat to international peace, making it possible for the Council to take action against such violations with measures provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. It identifies three human rights which have attracted most of the Council's attention: the right of peoples to self-determination, the right to democratic governance, and the fundamental rights (arising under international human rights law and international humanitarian law) of civilian populations and minorities during war and internal conflict.

This chapter focuses on a number of contexts where the policy-abundant indeterminate notions are included in treaties with the effect of impacting the rights and duties of States. These contexts relate to indeterminate margin of appreciation policy notions under the European Convention on Human Rights and the WTO law, ‘self-judging’ clauses of treaty termination under trade, investment and disarmament treaties, and the concept of the threat to the peace under Article 39 of the UN Charter. The principal findings of the chapter relate to the ways of eliminating subjective judgment in interpretation, and to the criteria of locating the observable elements of indeterminate ‘political’ notions included in treaties. The role of judicial review is also addressed to help interpreting indeterminate notions.