Constitutional Limitations on Sovereignty

The next topic is case study on non territorial sovereignty. Try to make a political comparison between China and Japan. Japan has experienced an economic crisis and also demographic crisis in the year 1990.He explained that before 1990 though Japan was experiencing high growth rate but due to demographic crisis lead to the economic crisis. There were too many old people at that time in Japan. It is found from the empirical data that both in Japan and Korea growth in labor is high. But these labors had so many kids and almost in every family the proportion of old people was high. This was the main reason behind the demographic crisis and also economic crisis that occurred in Japan and Korea at that time. He said that, United State had also experienced the same problem at that time. Japan had economic problem but they don’t need any war. Chinese economy also had experienced some economic crisis. But at that time communist party of China had been experiencing some transitional problem and to resolve that they need to call war in order to unified the community. It is a liberal domestic politics. Chinese govt. needed this war to move to become original hegemony. They also give this hegemony over the South East Asia. It was expected that, due to this the Chinese economy would fall by 10%. But from the empirical evidence it can be observed that it fell only by 4% The U.A.E case as an example of non territorial sovereignty violation the cyber attack as as a cause of these types of violation. There are liberal theory to compare different nation politically. Please look at different journal article published by different international organization last 20 years and pick out article on the topic bilateralism and liberalism. Please look at the textbook first if you are confused about these topics. Please go through the chapter 6, 7, 8,9,11. Look at also the footnotes of the chapters. I also have my own copy. The chapters mentioned are very good sources for learning liberalism and the about the territorial sovereignty. I do not say much about intervention. The territorial sovereignty is the main idea here. I do not say about anything about intervention because this is a specific subject. Now I would go for first four article of the journal of international organization. Do not go for more. Just look at the discussion about international theory, international need, and international hint. These are helpful in understanding intervention response. Please see article 2 paragraph 4. Now I will start the discussion about non-territorial invention. In the mean time, you can read about expecism, classical realism, classical intervention, constuctism, rational choice. In your summer vacation, you can spend time on the summarization of these topics. You can get books on this from the university presses, emirates university library. Books in university presses are very expensive. It sometime costs 100 dollars. You can check the journal on internal relationship, International topic, and different European journal on the same topic. You can make a dissertation on these topics in the summer. You can also make self-hypothesis on these subjects not necessary in the summer but on some other time. First take your own country as an example and then you can take other countries as case study to discuss violation of territorial sovereignty. Your main task will be to analyst the three main paradigms. Prof.Cane can help you in this task to you (Prokhovnik, 2013).

Person 2: .I wants to work on International relation and American policies.

Professor: You have to work with three measures or with three categories.

Person 2: No, there are actually five categories.

Professor: Then you have to take my carb class. Have you take any comparison?

Person 2: I have taken only one comparative policy.

Person 2: I think that IR is not that much related to the American policy. Anyway, what you can do is solely up to you. There is so much topic regarding American govt. You can work with rather liberalism in American Economy. Are you coming tomorrow on 3.30? Actually, my mentor was in China.

Professor: No, I will come on Tuesday.

Person 2: My mentor has told that there is much interested area to be analyzed in both IR and American Policy.

Professor: Ok. Do your analysis according to your mentor’s instruction. You can also works with the law of purchase.

Person 2: Yes, I have included that topic in my analysis.

Professor: Ok guys, we are taking about the long-term effect of the law of purchase. I want to tell something. If you want to pursue PhD then you must read from the day one. I know no one does that. You also must read relevant article on the American policy. You also have summarized the literature. You have to write on the digital violence, hacks done by Chinese people. What U.S government is doing to prevent this hacking? You can also mention the work done by 25 U.S agencies situated in Washington against this hacking. Forex will be the focus. What did you feel about moving from one place to another place?

Person: How can I get into America?

Professor: You have to make green card first as the first stepping.

Person: I also want to ask about dieses.

Professor: Are you taking about dissertation.

Person: No, I am taking about disease.

Professor: Ok, I understand.

Professor: This is completely different topic. We are taking about domestic violence. You can check websites of the WHO.

Professor: Now will discuss about the difference between cooperative Vs. Non cooperative responses. These are based on expectation and so forth. You can also do comparison between cooperative responses and self help responses. You can also state about cooperation on non state activity. You could do case study on the digital attack and digital cooperation. You can try also international Trade, WTO trade law, domestic institutional mechanism like American Trade code etc.

Ok, I will upload all this discussion on the net. Do you have any question more?

Person: Do I need to include any other topic in my analysis?

Professor: No, I think this is enough.

Video 2

Professor: We are looking at sovereignty

Person: I mainly focused on classical sovereignty.

Professor: I am thinking about a plan on your directive reading and read more articles on invention rather than sovereignty

Person: Yes.

Professor: Do you have a preference?

Person: I don’t have

Professor: so when we are looking at sovereignty if you accept the technology of four different categories if you look at the classical sovereignty from the viewpoint almost everything is a violation for this sovereignty. Whereas recent conceptualization moved towards either a voluntary of concession of sovereignty by state and therefore technically there is no violation of concession .This one category. Second is internationalization of issues which city council operates and another form of treaties of voluntarily sovereignty is done through multi lateral processes as opposed to bilateral agreements . There are different notion whether sovereignty is being violated or not. The concept innovation concerns illegal or violating norms. The definition from the legal point of view can be narrowly consolidated as the Australian doctrine or could be some other conceptualization. Crasner notion of sovereignty can be referred actual form of penetration into the critical process of the country without necessarily violating the national law and order. They do sometimes violate other norms and not legal norms. Therefore lead to disputes and this dispute can be classified as violating legal norms, violating regime norms or violating understanding on adhoc basis or violating bilateral or multilateral norms. Then the dispute are curbing because the norms are unclear. The resulting from the new situation in which there is new technology, new resources and therefore the norm has changed because the circumstances have changed. Sometimes that kind of dispute follows legal discourse and categorizization. The situation would be the mixture of legal and non legal dispute. So, with that kind of overview which you want to study is you can assign each of these categories. I mentioned some of the author along the way. The treaty before 1651 and after 1651 both talk about the norms of the violation of sovereignty. Peace, promotion, sovereignty and intervention is huge. You might found a lot of empirical discussion about sovereignty. For example, a lot of discussion on female sovereignty which fits into the situation of internationalization. Because of trety, there is costly universal and hence by the state and or human existence which I never saw. Therefore applying to some extent, as a subject of violation of state sovereignty even though I never was talking about this violation. And the maximum invention actually forcibly either results of security cancellation, sanction. With this security cancellation equalizing the forcibly invention protecting rights. On the one hand most limited form of human rights is just evaluation and the maximum authorization norm to take to change the govt. The sovereignty is poor. We have natural resource despite of territorial dispute and we often have sovereignty base disputes. Various institutions try to resolve peacefully through legally regulated process like irrigation, mediation, arbitration, consolidation, bilateral and multilateral processes. So then you have a kind of pedicle science. Most of I discussed concerns international war. You could do some combination asking a question about what is the other form of the international sovereignty dispute using lying on regime or lying on corporation. Conflicts can be resolved from this particular way. There may emerge another conflict because the regulation cannot be applied. Territorial sovereignty is a biggest norm. So in some scene the mapping or overview of the big picture which is really very clear on having govern globally through incorporation ,war of some adhoc basis for example climate change which cannot be regulated.

References

Power, G. (2014). Constitutional Limitations on Sovereignty, 2014 edition. [email protected] Carey Law.

Prokhovnik, R. (2013). From Sovereignty in Australia to Australian Sovereignty. Political Studies, 63(2), pp.412-430.