The BRICs Come of Global Age

The world is rapidly evolving on many fronts. Brazil, Turkey and other emerging powers are taking their own initiatives and building their own global links outside the old frameworks of the G‐8, the United Nations Security Council and NATO. The “third way” politics of Tony Blair that embraced globalization from the left of center in Britain has given way to the Tory party once again. Just as recovery from the financial crash seemed on the horizon, Europe's sovereign debt crisis has erupted. The historically unprecedented pace and scale of urbanization in China is transforming the politics of the Communist Party. President Lula of Brazil, former US treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Singapore's foreign minister George Yeo and others take stock of these manifold developments.     

Another Weber: state,associations and domination in international relations

While there has arguably been a partial reception of Weber in international relations (IR), we argue here that his ideas have either been misunderstood or neglected. In order to highlight the most valuable Weberian insights, we focus on two topics of crucial importance to IR. First, in our view, Weber's crucial contribution to the study of states is not his alleged emphasis on the monopoly of violence but his concern with the problem of legitimacy, which is the key to understanding why individuals actually orient an action according to their beliefs in the idea of a state. Second, Weber conducted seminal historical investigations on religion, the rationalization of economic ethics, and organizations that show that the diffusion of isomorphism has little to do with supposedly uninterested and persuasive scientific and professional associations. Instead, more attention should be paid to rational domination and less to reified concepts such as John Meyer's ‘rationalized otherhood’. These arguments are also examined empirically.     

The frequency of alcohol,illicit and licit drug consumption in the general driving population in South-East Hungary

In the framework of the DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol, and Medicines) EU-6 project, a roadside survey was performed in South-East Hungary to determine the incidence of alcohol and the most frequent illicit and licit drug consumption (amphetamines, THC, illicit and medical opiates, cocaine, ketamine, benzodiazepines, zopiclone and zolpidem) in the general driving population. All 3110 drivers stopped between 01 January 2008 and 31 December 2009 were checked for alcohol, and among them 2738 persons (87.7%) participated in the further examinations, on a voluntary basis. Licit and illicit drugs were determined from their oral fluid samples by GC–MS analysis.Illicit drugs were detected in 27 cases (0.99%), licit drugs in 85 cases (3.14%), and alcohol (cut off: 0.1 g/l) was found in 4 (0.13%) cases. Illicit drug consumption was the highest among men of the ages 18–34, during the spring, and on the week-end nights. With respect to licit drugs, the highest incidence was found among women over the age of 50, during the summer, and on the week-days. All alcohol positive cases were men over the age of 35. In comparison to international European averages, the alcohol and illicit drug consumption was low, but the licit drug consumption was over the European average.     

Multinationals as Stabilisers? Economic Crisis,Access to Finance,and Employment Growth

This article examines the comparative response of multinationals and domestic firms to an economic crisis, using the empirical setting of a well defined case of economic slowdown in Chile. We find that employment in manufacturing plants has been drastically reduced during the economic crisis. Our findings reveal that multinationals are more likely to exit contributing to the employment contraction during the crisis, but surviving foreign firms experience lower employment reductions than domestic enterprises. These results are not fully consistent with the idea that multinationals are less affected by an economic crisis and that they may act as stabilisers.     

Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the Un Human Rights Committee

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a body of 18 independent experts (including a member from the Netherlands, Professor Cees Flinterman) who are tasked with monitoring compliance with the provisions of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in force 23 March 1976). The Committee deploys four principal activities — periodic examination of State Party reports, interpretation and progressive development of the provisions of the Covenant in the form of General Comments, and adjudication of individual complaints under the Optional Protocol, as well as follow-up procedures. This article analyzes the Committee’s second General Comment on Article 19 of the Covenant, which stipulates freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. In 52 paragraphs the General Comment systematically examines, defines and delimits the concepts contained in the three subparagraphs of Article 19, basing itself primarily on the Committee’s concluding observations upon examination of State Party reports and on the case-law in response to petitions under the Optional Protocol. The Committee highlights the primacy of freedom of opinion, recognizing that it is crucial for a democratic society that persons have access to truthful, reliable and pluralistic information, including through the internet, in order to develop a personal opinion whose expression must then be protected by law. The Committee notes, however, that whereas it is inadmissible to impose any restrictions on freedom of opinion, there are certain responsibilities that attach to the exercise of freedom of expression, namely the respect of the reputation of others as well as considerations of health, morals and national security. The Committee holds that so-called ‘memory laws’ as well as blasphemy laws are incompatible with Article 19 and that defamation laws must strike a balance between competing rights and interests. Paragraph 49 of the General Comment clearly affirms the right to hold non-conformist historical views and the right to be wrong. While it is not the function of lawyers or judges to establish what historical truth is, Article 20 of the Covenant imposes an obligation on governments to prohibit incitement to racial hatred or violence, the criminalization of which requires narrow definition of the elements of the crime.