This essay offers a history of international marriages that questions the definition of marriage and what it meant to belong, as a legal subject or citizen, to a colonial state in Southeast Asia. European imperial states deployed monogamous marriage alongside other weapons of empire as a justification for intervention into Southeast Asian societies. With monogamous marriage came also European notions of belonging that traced surnames and legal subject status (later citizenship) via husbands and fathers. The ramifications for individuals in international marriages between Asian women and European men are well known. However, the vast majority of ‘international marriages’ were not those between colonial Europeans and Southeast Asian women, but between Southeast Asian women and lower class Asian men from India and China. Colonial states ignored or failed to register these lower class intra-Asian intimacies because their unions did not threaten colonial rule so long as they ensured a continuous pool of labor and promoted the colonial economy. Unlike recent theories which argue for an omniscient state that penetrates into the personal lives of its populations, this essay maintains that states intensely regulated marriage and belonging for some subjects but not for others. This longstanding unevenness in the management of intimate unions provides a historical context for understanding shifts in the marital regimes of contemporary postcolonial states. Taking a long-term view, the essay asks if recent increases in international marriages might be better understood as spikes rather than as absolute increases resulting from ‘globalization’. A historical framework ties the rise and fall of international marriage to early modern trade patterns, imperialism's labor requirements, war, and the recent demand for labor that has arisen from low birth rates and economic changes. Each of these ‘events’ entailed a large-scale movement of populations which resulted in the development of intimate unions. 相似文献
Non‐state market regulation has become a central focus and continues to receive scholarly attention. The present paper provides an assessment of the conditions under which multinational firms join a multi‐stakeholder certification initiative. The cases of the Fair labor Association and 17 international sport footwear companies have been selected for this purpose. A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the 17 cases is performed. The paper argues that the combination of sustained NGO pressure and public ownership of a firm is a necessary precondition for firms joining a multi‐stakeholder certification initiative. The theoretical and policy implications of this result are discussed. 相似文献
Is there a ‘constitutional moment’in contemporary Europe? What if anything is the constitution of theEuropean Union; what kind of polity is the Union? The suggestionoffered is that there is a legally constituted order, and that asuitable term to apply to it is a‘commonwealth’, comprising a commonwealthof ‘post-sovereign’ states. Is it a democraticcommonwealth, and can it be? Is there sufficiently ademos or ‘people’ for democracy to be possible?If not democratic, what is it? Monarchy, oligarchy, ordemocracy, or a ‘mixed constitution’? Argued: thereis a mixed constitution containing a reasonableelement of democratic rule. The value of democracy isthen explored in terms of individualistic versusholistic evaluation and instrumental versus intrinsicvalue. Subsidiarity can be considered in a similarlight, suggestively in terms of forms of democracyappropriate to different levels of self-government.The conclusion is that there is no absolute democraticdeficit in the European commonwealth.
Aggressive pursuit of free trade agreements (FTAs) and customs unions (CUs) by major and minor trading powers alike challenges
the conventional wisdom in favor of such pursuit – competitive liberalization. An equally plausible explanation for an active
bilateral and regional trade agreement policy, one which effectively de-emphasizes multilateralism, may be competitive imperialism.
The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is one area in which new provisions, going beyond multilateral
rules, are being negotiated and written into FTAs and CUs. Such provisions may yield insights into which characterization
of bilateralism and regionalism – competitive liberalization or competitive imperialism – is more apt.
Rice Distinguished Professor, The University of Kansas, School of Law, Green Hall, 1535 West 15th Street, Lawrence, KS 66045-7577,
USA. Tel. +1-785-8649224. Fax. +1-785-8645054. www.law.ku.edu. J.D., Harvard (1989); M.Sc., Oxford (1986); M.Sc., London School
of Economics (1985); A.B., Duke (1984). Marshall Scholar (1984-86). Member, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Society for
Asian Affairs, and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Author, Modern GATT Law (Sweet & Maxwell 2005), International Trade Law: Theory and Practice (2nd ed. 2000, 3rd ed. forthcoming 2007-08), and Trade, Development, and Social Justice (Carolina Academic Press 2003).
I am thankful to my Research Assistant, Mr. David R. Jackson (B.A., George Mason University, 1992; J.D. Class of 2007, University
of Kansas), for his indispensable help on this work. I also am grateful to Dr. Mohammed El Said, University of Central Lancashire
(UCLAN), for his consistent support and friendship, and for what he has taught and continues to teach me about international
trade and intellectual property. 相似文献