would have wished
to portray their histories as long periods of suffering and decline, why playing
the victim should now, more than ever, seem like a good idea. Since the introduction of the United Nations Conventions on Genocide and HumanRights in
1948, many people have felt a greater sense of responsibility for humanrights
abuses around the world. Rather than adopting a policy of non-interference in
the internal affairs of other countries, we have become more concerned about
what goes on behind closed doors, and more interventionist than ever before.
Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies.
sovereignty, humanrights and socio-economic
development. Authority, on the other hand, was conceptualised in a
four-dimensional way, to encompass the depth and breadth of peacekeeping
functions, the requirement of consent, the UN’s normative
competence to make judgements, and the implementation of decisions.
Within this conceptual framework, we developed an analysis of the
collective expectations of the
Washington’s painful search for a credible China policy
class forces’, built to fight. 7 China, to date, is still a Leninist party-state that is far from tamed. Rather than undermining the government, the Internet has become an indispensable tool of Beijing’s “controlocracy”. 8 China’s violations of humanrights have grown more brazen and the surveillance state is thriving.
Was John J. Mearsheimer, the most consistent critic of US policy of engagement, then right in saying that letting China into the WTO was a fatal mistake? Mearsheimer argues that the future Chinese threat ‘might be far more powerful and dangerous
humanrights and democratic norms. Regional leaders have fixed elections, emasculated parliaments, bribed the courts, strong-armed the
media, and bullied opposition figures’.7
Such practices have enabled regional leaders to pack regional assemblies with their loyal supporters. And in many of the ethnic republics,
assemblies are nothing more than an appendage of executive power. And
by controlling the parliaments regional leaders have been able to control
other key bodies such as the police, courts and electoral commission all
of which are highly politicised.
private has expanded to include important issues of humanrights1 and citizenship. While rights, like the state, provoke
different responses from feminists (see Rai 1996), humanrights discourse has been central to the struggles for democracy in the 1980s and 1990s. In Guatemala, for example,
the exposure of humanrights violations was the first step
towards building the movement for democratization. However, the movement also tried to conscientize the popular
masses with ‘the longer-term goal of preparing pobladoras to
become citizens by organising their
and political processes. Democracy in Turkey has successfully coped with various political and constitutional crises, the observing of human and civil rights by the authorities has improved and features of civil society have become stronger. True, changes and improvements are still needed, the economy gravely faltered towards the end of the decade and further respect of humanrights must continue, yet many achievements are clearly discernible, some are indeed outstanding.
Our study centers on several key internal and external aspects of Turkey
overriding and uncontested value,
especially in relation to other important principles in the Charter.
On close inspection it becomes evident that most
principles scattered through the Charter cluster around three other
basic values and are closely associated with them: 32 state
sovereignty, humanrights and socio-economic development. State
sovereignty and humanrights seem to be especially relevant to the
on popular sovereignty, republicanism and humanrights. He offended
virtually everyone, including the British Government, the French
Revolutionaries and American Radicals, but provided the basis for many
liberal and socialist ideas of the nineteenth century.
The nineteenth century and ‘classical
The nineteenth century was the heyday
of what can be termed ‘classical liberalism’. Indeed
degree of political involvement or ‘humanrights advocacy’ that humanitarians should engage
in, about questions of ‘co-ordination’ of humanitarian and military
action – marked stages in the movement from the relatively independent, poorly resourced and fairly marginal humanitarian groups
of the Cold War period to a hugely well-resourced state humanitarianism, where the so-called ‘non-governmental’ sector remains central,
but as a subcontractor to state agencies. More recently, the term
‘humanitarian war’ has come to prominence, as noted above, with