September 11th and U.S. Hegemony—Or Will the 21st Century Be American Too?

The tragedy of September 11 highlights the stark contrast between the real and measurable capabilities possessed by one state, and the almost inevitable resentments which the possession of those capabilities engendered in others. The purpose of this article is not to interrogate the strengths and weaknesses of arguments of American decline. Nor is it to speculate at length about September 11th. It is instead to set the scene and try and identify the underlying causes of America's transition from presumed crisis in the 1970s and 1980s to new self-confidence in the 1990s—a self-confidence that some now feel has been shattered by the events of September. While there were important structural reasons why the United States was unlikely to go the way of other powers, it was a peculiar conjuncture of mainly unforeseen developments that combined together after 1989 to improve the U.S. position within the world. We will then move on to discuss the most effective way of characterizing this position. Here, we will mount a defense of the somewhat contentious notion of "hegemony" While recognizing the problems associated with the idea, it will be argued that as a concept it has serious intellectual advantages over its various theoretical competitors. If nothing else, because it focuses on the American role within the world system, rather than just its statically defined position, it is theoretically more suggestive than the less dynamic idea of unipolarity.     

The Revitalization of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Die Berücksichtigung von Auswirkungen auf charakteristische Arten der Lebensräume nach Anhang I der FFH-Richtlinie in der FFH-Verträglichkeitsprüfung Anmerkungen zum Urteil des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts vom 16. März 2006 – 4 A 1075.04 (Großflughafen Berlin-Brandenburg)

Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht hat in seinem Urteil vom 16.3.2006 zum Gro?flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg in einem Leitsatz festgestellt, dass das FFH-Schutzregime, dem bestimmte Biotope unterliegen, sich nicht auf V?gel erstreckt, denen das betreffende Biotop als Habitat dient. Diese Feststellung führt zu der Frage, inwieweit charakteristische Arten von Lebensr?umen nach Anhang I FFH-RL in der FFH-Vertr?glichkeitsprüfung nach § 34 BNatSchG überhaupt bewertungsrelevant sind. Der Beitrag setzt sich dazu mit dem Urteil kritisch auseinander.