We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter deals with the German position on States and their organs. It is divided into five parts: territorial sovereignty; political independence; Statehood and recognition; organs of the State and their status; and State succession. The first part deals with the principles underpinning Germany’s delivery of humanitarian assistance; Germany’s view on the Kashmir conflict as an internal matter of India; Germany rebuking the United States for recognising Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, Germany’s criticism of Russia’s passportisation in Ukraine, Germany’s position on Georgia’s territorial integrity regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two German court rulings on the legality of Kuwait Airline’s practice of not transporting Israeli citizens; Germany granting refugee status to two activists from Hong Kong; and a German court’s decision on the return of an Iraqi citizen in a criminal case and possible links to the principle of male captus. The second part, political independence, deals with Germany opposing Facebook’s Libra currency on grounds of State sovereignty and advocating regaining digital sovereignty; and the meeting of Federal Foreign Minister Heiko Maas with Joshua Wong. The third, statehood and recognition, focuses on Germany confirming its non-recognition of the Republic of China (Taiwan).
Perhaps due to the influence of the great man myth of history, the Constitution of the United States of America is rarely named as participating in the shaping of the just war tradition, let alone being a just war document. Yet the concerns of war and just war thinking pervade the original document and the Bill of Rights as well as and some of its later amendments and are visible not only in the story of its creation but, even more significantly, in its rhetoric. Moreover, even as it and other constitutions are the primary expression of modern legal thought, it manifests a particular way of doing just war thinking that sits uncomfortably within modern just war theory. The way it inscribes sovereignty – at both personal and national levels – while diffusing authority exacerbates the wicked problems of climate-shaped conflicts, especially those relating to nonstate actors and global inequities.
Legitimation is spatialized, in its invocation and reproduction of hierarchies as well as the claiming of particular domains. This chapter examines two spatialized practices: extensity as the projection of scale and depth, and territoriality as the demarcation of boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. It looks firstly at lateral legitimation across Bagamoyo district in these spatialized forms. While extensity is the predominant dynamic in this field, mimicking the architecture of the Tanzanian state, there are also territorial practices, especially when angled downward to the hallowed ‘community’. Second, the chapter examines NGO extensity at the outreaches of Bagamoyo’s ‘sovereign borders’ in underserved Kibindu, where developmental activity was solicited and there proved considerable ‘space to govern’. In this context, territoriality fell away as a basis for legitimation and instead Bagamoyo’s most extensive NGO served to ‘co-produce’ the state. However, the situation was strongly reversed in urbanizing Kiharaka, wherein NGO territoriality through explicit practices of inclusion and exclusion found traction. In the divergent contexts of Kibindu and Kiharaka, extensity and territoriality therefore proved to be competing forms of spatial power.
Voluntarism, and its associated virtue, has long been a legitimation device in the construction of public authority. It has been theorized, at least in Western political philosophy, as a counterweight to the excesses of big government or big business. In some studies in Africa, voluntarism has been married to instrumentalist accounts of doing politics. This chapter highlights the nuanced complexities in invoking voluntarism, its ideational and material components, and the multifaceted opportunities and obligations it affords. It demonstrates continuity between government and non-government around the production of this form of authority. However, legitimation is a practice negotiated by its ‘publics’. In this case, this comprises volunteers who must negotiate the vertical, often extractive pressures from external actors of their physical and emotional labours as well as lateral contestation by peers of their own authority to act in the interests of Others. This chapter explores the material and ideational legitimation that volunteer networks afford non-governmental organizations as well as the negotiation and contestation of voluntarism’s work on the part of volunteers themselves.
One of the starkest legitimation practices lies in how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) positioned themselves vis-à-vis the organs of the state and vice versa. There is no more enduring division in political science than that posited between ‘state’ and ‘society’: a divide that is blurred in practice but remains ideationally pertinent in Tanzania’s political landscape. NGOs work the state–society ideational divide and garner capital from both. This chapter maps the use of state relations but also ‘state-like practices’ by Bagamoyo’s two international NGOs. One was heavily aligned with government practices to the point of mimicry and indeed co-extended with and co-produced the state. This worked to great effect in some cases and to abject failure in others. The other international NGO, by contrast, was increasingly distant from and antagonistic to local and national government, meaning its fortunes were precisely reversed. In both cases, however, positionalities were not fixed. Both NGOs varied their stances towards local government when expedient, highlighting how legitimation is continually recalibrated. Positionality vis-à-vis the state is thus fluid and ambiguous but remains strategic and deliberately visible, in crafting the space to govern.
Human rights have become a principle and a value that have increasingly gained the support of various segments of society. Human rights are often associated with democracy, the rule of law, the civilizing process and human dignity. They are also associated with the idea that everyone, anywhere and regardless of their citizenship status, has basic rights, which must be respected by others and the state (see, among others, Sen, 2004).
The chapter examines institutional investor stewardship in Malaysia from three perspectives: the code, its context and challenges. It outlines the history and background of Malaysian institutional investor stewardship, culminating in the Malaysian Code for Institutional Investors (MCII). The chapter then analyses the MCII stewardship principles and its oversight in detail. A subsequent section of the chapter appraises the Malaysian stewardship journey by evaluating the adoption of the MCII by asset owners and asset managers through a review of their compliance statements. The chapter further sets out the broader context which these institutional investors operate within. It highlights the prevalence of Government Linked Investment Companies (GLICs) and Government Linked Companies (GLCs), which are arguably a result of Malaysia’s characterisation as an emerging economy and a developmental state. The chapter notes that the impetus for the MCII was driven by industry in accordance with the Corporate Governance Blueprint. However, what constitutes industry in Malaysia is inextricably linked to the state via its ownership and control of GLICs and GLCs. Therefore, apart from concerns about the quality of stewardship statements and ownership engagement, structural issues such as the breadth and depth of state ownership and control of institutional investors challenge effective stewardship practice.
This article argues that marriage is a divine institution that pre-dates the state, and marriages are supernaturally effected by God consequent on the exchange of marital consent by the parties, whether or not the state recognises them as marriages. In fact, taking note of, and legislating about, marriage thus properly conceived is not within the state's remit. Despite this, the law in England and Wales is involved with the institution of marriage in three main ways: (1) it purports to define marriage, and its entry and exit conditions; (2) it passes laws affording or denying certain legal benefits or penalties on the basis of marital status; and (3) it registers marriages, and in practice imposes or denies the benefits or penalties just mentioned on the basis of registration of marriage, or lack of it. The supernatural action on God's part of creating marriages is not a fit subject for such involvement on the state's part. The underlying exchange of marital consent by the parties is, by contrast, within the state's sphere of competence, but it is argued that the state should be tracking a broader category of relationships than just those involving the exchange of marital consent. It is suggested that all marriage law should be repealed, and replaced by an Australian-style law of de facto relationships. If the law deals with de facto relationships there is no need for it to be involved with the institution of marriage as well, and that institution can be left to flourish outside the state's grasp. The article goes on to respond to some possible objections.
This article will examine state intervention in the lives of tigers and people living in and around Panna Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, Central India. It explores how, over a decade after a reintroduction project rebuilt the tiger population from extinction and the central government launched a new compensation scheme to relocate villagers away from the national park, relocated tigers and not-yet relocated villagers resist and challenge conservation interventions to eradicate human life in Panna Tiger Reserve and (re)construct it as a wild tiger landscape. It will show how discourses of conservation and development that motivate state intervention seek to depoliticize and obfuscate programmes of control over human and tiger lives through their separation and purported ‘care’, contiguous with colonial policies and discursive practices that have intertwined the fate of wild animals and forest-dependent villagers in this part of India. In their feral subversions against these interventions, relocated tigers and not-yet relocated villagers expose the problematic contradictions and tensions that plague animal management, wildlife conservation, and rural development in India today. Based on 15 months of ethnographic fieldwork, the article draws on case studies and accounts from communities living around Panna Tiger Reserve to present alternatives to colonial and post-colonial discursive legitimizations of state intervention and control, revealing alternate understandings of the entanglement of humans and animals and the categories of ‘wild’ and ‘tame’.
This opening chapter raises the research questions that motivate this book. It briefly introduces the state of mineral exploration in China and the ensuing impacts on the Chinese economy and society and pinpoints the puzzling existence of a contained resource curse in China. After critically reviewing the existing debate on the resource curse, it proposes an original theory about how mineral resources affect state–capital–labor relations, which can explain the empirical observations in China. This chapter lays out the roadmap of the whole book and explains the research methods and data sources for the empirical analysis in the following chapters.
This introductory chapter outlines the problem of social order and the main argument of the book: that the question of what holds complex and diverse societies together has become – and has remained – a philosophical puzzle in modern political science, a presupposition that has been built into our concepts, theories, and normative commitments. Having outlined the argument, the contents and the structure of the book, the chapter then provides a short background for the problem of social order in political science. The chapter recalls how this problem emerged as such in modern social and political discourse in the evolution of the modern concepts of state, nation, and society and discusses how the relations among these concepts provided nineteenth-century political thought with a solution to the problem of social order predicated on a fusion of nationality and statehood.
This chapter describes and analyzes how British pluralists in the early twentieth century critiqued the fusion of nationality and statehood that had hitherto provided a conceptual foundation for political science, and how their critique exposed the discipline to the problem of social order. The chapter also treats the contemporary critical reception of British pluralism in America.
This chapter considers two strands of research that emerged from the literature on power: first, a renewed theoretical and empirical interest in the role of state institutions in political life; second, a normative preference for, and theorizing of, participation. Both, the chapter shows, ended up restating the problem of social order.
As a country rich in mineral resources, contemporary China remains surprisingly overlooked in the research about the much debated 'resource curse'. This is the first full-length study to examine the distinctive effects of mineral resources on the state, capital and labour and their interrelations in China. Jing Vivian Zhan draws on a wealth of empirical evidence, both qualitative and quantitative. Taking a subnational approach, she zooms in on local situations and demonstrates how mineral resources affect local governance and economic as well as human development. Characterizing mining industries as pro-capital and anti-labour, this study also highlights the redistributive roles that the state can play to redress the imbalance. It reveals the Chinese state's strategies to contain the resource curse and also pinpoints some pitfalls of the China model, which offer important policy implications for China and other resource-rich countries.
The problem of social order is the question of what holds complex and diverse societies together. Today, this question has become increasingly urgent in the world. Yet our ability to ask and answer the question in a helpful way is constrained by the intellectual legacy through which the question has been handed down to us. In this impressive, erudite study, Henrik Enroth describes and analyzes how the problem of social order has shaped concept formation, theory, and normative arguments in political science. The book covers a broad range of influential thinkers and theories throughout the history of political science, from the early twentieth century onwards. Social order has long been a presupposition for inquiry in political science; now we face the challenge of turning it into an object of inquiry.
Violence, both physical and nonphysical, is central to any society, but it is a version of the problem that it claims to solve. This Element examines how states in ancient East Asia, from the late Shang through the end of the Han dynasty, wielded violence to create and display authority, and also how their licit violence was entangled in the 'savage' or 'criminal' violence whose suppression justified their power. The East Asian cases are supplemented through citing comparable Western ones. The themes examined include the emergence of the warrior as a human type, the overlap of hunts and combat (and the overlap between treatments of alien species and alien peoples), sacrifice of both alien captives and 'death attendants' from one's own groups, the impact of military specialization and the increased scale of armies, the emergent ideal of self-sacrifice, and the diverse aspects of violence in the regime of law.
The rural economy will predominate in almost any preindustrial society – perhaps particularly so in China. No barriers comparable to medieval Europe’s guild rules made large sectors into urban monopolies; and though China was probably the world’s most urbanized large society c. 1200, and perhaps still as urban as Europe in the late 1600s, much of its elite lived in the countryside rather than in cities or fortified castles (especially between roughly 1100 and 1550). Moreover, the property systems prevailing in China’s most commercialized areas created incentives for most nonelite families to remain in the countryside, transferring labor not needed for farming to handicrafts without moving to town. The result was a highly diversified rural economy and cities that, though often quite large, were much smaller than the rural surplus could have supported.
How do coalitional dynamics matter for the capacity of states to maintain social inclusion in coordinated models of capitalism? Taking its departure in scholarship emphasizing the influence of employers on the extent of state intervention in post-industrial economies, this paper argues that employer influence depends on which actors they team up with – unions or parties. If unions depend on employers for their organizational influence in a policy field, unions become a strong coalitional partner for employers in weakening demands for inclusiveness from the parliamentary arena. Conversely, if unions have influence independent of any coalition with employers, both unions and employers are likely to team up with political parties aligned with their preferences. This makes the level of inclusion resulting from increased state intervention more fluctuating, depending on who holds government power. A comparative study of reforms of Danish and Austrian vocational education institutions corroborates the empirical purchase of the argument.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Sanhūrī (d. 1971), the father of the Egyptian legal code, theorized a relationship between dīn (religion) and dawla (state) that was key to his project. In this relationship, al-Sanhūrī posited a delineation between the spheres of dīn and dawla that allowed him to map these categories onto the existing distinction between matters of ʿibādāt (acts of worship) and muʾāmalāt (transactions) in Islamic law (fiqh). I propose that Islamic jurisprudential distinctions between ʿibādāt and muʿāmalāt—for al-Sanhūrī—was the ideal medium to maintain and police the borderlines between religion and state in the postcolonial Egyptian state. Al-Sanhūrī's objective was to keep the domain of dīn outside of state sanction and to facilitate a transition whereby the state's legal institutions assumed exclusive lawmaking powers based on its own independent legal reasoning in Islamic law (ijtihād). I argue that al-Sanhūrī was a committed comparatist, not a reformer of Islamic law. Al-Sanhūrī's legal project should be viewed as a faithful commitment to French comparative law as a method of legal inquiry and a reflection of his nationalist agenda of creating a unified legal order that cannot exist without relying upon indigenous forms of law and culture. Al-Sanhūrī saw Khedival legal pluralism as an obstacle for national sovereignty. As a result of the institutional and legal readjustments from the 1920s through 1950s in Egypt, al-Sanhūrī did not see a future for Islamic law in the emerging legal state apparatus outside of civil law strictures and insisted that Islamic courts and religious tribunals for Jews and Christians must be subsumed under nationalized secular state courts.