Saturday, October 16, 2010
Global Musings on a picture
Tame Impala as a case study in Glocalization
I am a really big fan of indie rock for a variety of reasons. The concept of an independent label appeals to my sensibilities with regard to large monolithic corporations, I am really not a fan, and the artistic freedom that one is afforded by being an indie act is really quite amazing. You can produce real music, not something canned and designed to sell a billion copies. I found out about Tame Impala through Sirius XMU, the Sirius Satellite indie rock channel, and the magic of the Internet. The Internet has become a great promoter of youth culture in a way that no other medium has ever been able to facilitate. The first generation that may have had a global "youth culture" was the one that came of age in the late sixties to early seventies. The British invasion as a rock movement was by no means focused upon the United States and probably resonated through out much of the "free world" and became the subject of much bootleg importation into the Soviet Union. But all of this was accomplished through the promotion of major record labels who controlled what message and media made it into the main stream. Today in contrast, the Internet can represent a kind of meritocracy of music. That is not to say that the "best" music makes it big (Miley Cyrus is a case in point of how a traditional record label can still hold sway) but what the Internet allows one to do is to connect listeners to music that is far outside of their typical scene. Very few of the bands that I listen to have ever come within 100 miles of Hampton Roads. The National played in Richmond last year but with the success of their latest album they probably will start touring on a larger venue circuit which means not in Virginia Beach or Norfolk. Where as in earlier generations a band became popular in a local scene, say Seattle and Nirvana circa 1989, and then went big nationally, today a band can become famous internationally without ever doing much locally. Thus music has become far more globalized than many other media. Assuming you do not live behind the Great Firewall of China, an connection to the Internet connects one to a growing global youth culture of music. Yet even more striking is how subdivided this culture truly is. To quote the Canadian band Arcade Fire from their latest album The Suburbs, "The music we listen to, divides us into tribes." So while I and a fellow twenty something in Tierra del Fuego can have identical exposure to music and similar tastes, because of the shear volume of music available to us it is unlikely we would have ever come into contact with the exact same material. That being said, despite local differences we probably could still appreciate the same music despite being at different ends of the globe. Ultimately, while previous generations had a kind of universal soundtrack to their youths, my generation has as many sound tracks as their are subcultures of music. In the end, rather than uniting the world in a single global music culture, the Internet may very well save us from homogeneity and create a very diverse and colorful music market where anyone with recording equipment and an internet connection can become a star. I think Andy Warhol would be proud. Tame Impala - It is not meant to be
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Research topic
One topic that has been vital to globalization in the United States and globally in the twenty first century is Wal-Mart. To disagree that Wal-mart does not impact our global economy is crazy. Walmart serves customers and members more than 200 million times per week. Wal-Mart's international operations currently comprise 4,081 stores and 664,000 workers in 14 countries outside the United States.In 2010 the sales delivered outside the U.S. reached one hundred billion. Walmart had a fiscal year of $405 billion in sales, and Walmart employs more than 2 million associates worldwide. This number made Wal-mart number one on the Fortune 500 businesses.
My research topic or question is how does the mass globalization of Wal-mart impact the economy. For this I could look at both pros and cons of Wal-mart, both in the United States and in other courties. There is many things I can look at while also looking at the economic impact of the globalization of Wal-mart. For example, how it effects factory workers, food production, global factories, and global outsourcing. Another is the impact of shifting production to cheap labor markets overseas.
The reason I am so interested in this topic is I like how this effects the people of today and not something that has happened. The globalization of Walmart is happening, the company is growing and continues to grow every year. Another thing that interest me is how big Wal-mart actually is, and the impact it has on the global economy. Walmart that was created in 1962 grew to the number one business in fifty years.
Some smaller question I could bring up in my paper is:
· How does making production overseas effect the United States?
· What is the positives of Walmart globalizing?
· What are the negatives of Walmart globalizing?
· Why is China such important factor for Walmart?
· What countries did Walmart move to first and why?
· What does the future look like for walmart in the global perspective?
References
Fishman, Charles. 2006. The Wal-Mart effect: how the world's most powerful company really works-- and how it's transforming the American economy. New York: Penguin Press.
Smith, Hedrick, and Rick Young. 2005. Is Wal-Mart good for America? [Alexandria, Va.]: PBS Video.
Kammen, Glenn D., Robert B. Reich, Ruth Milkman, Edna Bonacich, Michael Mann, David A. Smith, Denise H. Froning, et al. 2005. Working world. Way we live : Introduction to sociology, 14. Pasadena, Calif: Intelecom.
"The Movement of Labor." New York Times 03 Aug. 2003: 7. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Sept. 2010.
Gereffi, Gary, and Michelle Christian. "The Impacts of Wal-Mart: The Rise and Consequences of the World's Dominant Retailer." Annual Review of Sociology 35.1 (2009): 573-591. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 29 Sept. 2010.
First research proposal
For my paper, I will look to argue the nature of "law" and "city." Incorporated into this argument is this question of spatial reality and what inherently is "visible" and "invisible." The United States (a "city" in the relation to our discussion) is right in the center of the current debate of spatial reality. The argument of "visible invisibility" is perfect for our discussion of the United States and Globalization. The first article I read for my research is entitled, "From Space Immaterial: The Invisibility of the Lawscape." In this article's introduction, the two authors state that "invisible cities are slices of space through which visibility slides by." (438) This quote is perfect for the beginning framework of what my research is going to study; this notion of our visible "city," the United States, "shedding light onto and into blind spots, to reveal instead the resplendent floppiness the inevitably of the continuous production of further blind spots...thus confounding modernity's visibility with its very escape into invisibility." (440) The United States, the ultimate hegemonic power although slowly losing its grip on the rest of the globe, is attempting to "shed its light" onto the rest of the globe one last time, or onto one more "final frontier" - outerspace.
How is the United States able to pull such a bold move with the "weaponization of outerspace?" One argument is a "visible city and a visible law allow no space from which either of them is to be seen." In other words, nations that are under the spell of our intra-connected, capitalistic, globalized way of life, cannot see nor can they understand a "city saturated with control."
With this notion of "city" and "law" both coinciding with one another in their visible states an inherent invisibility of spatial relations, uniqueness, democracy, and opinion all become relative to the citizens of said "law" and "city." With the invisibility of "city" and "law," the United States is able to garnish enough momentum for arguably their final push to save American Exceptionalism, and ultimately, the capitalist style of world production (in other words, to save their self-interests); this final push of momentum to save the "American Dream" is the controlling of a new "frontier" or "city," outerspace. With the already facilitated notion of the fusion of "law" and "city," invisibility is the chief support system that can possibly help the United States add one final push to their hegemonic, controlling domination in our current globalized society - the sovereignty to control outerspace, and thus leading to its build up of military arms.
This is just the beginning to my proposal. I will have an updated proposal with a working bibliography published onto the blog sometime this weekend.
Thanks, JT Liverman
How is the United States able to pull such a bold move with the "weaponization of outerspace?" One argument is a "visible city and a visible law allow no space from which either of them is to be seen." In other words, nations that are under the spell of our intra-connected, capitalistic, globalized way of life, cannot see nor can they understand a "city saturated with control."
With this notion of "city" and "law" both coinciding with one another in their visible states an inherent invisibility of spatial relations, uniqueness, democracy, and opinion all become relative to the citizens of said "law" and "city." With the invisibility of "city" and "law," the United States is able to garnish enough momentum for arguably their final push to save American Exceptionalism, and ultimately, the capitalist style of world production (in other words, to save their self-interests); this final push of momentum to save the "American Dream" is the controlling of a new "frontier" or "city," outerspace. With the already facilitated notion of the fusion of "law" and "city," invisibility is the chief support system that can possibly help the United States add one final push to their hegemonic, controlling domination in our current globalized society - the sovereignty to control outerspace, and thus leading to its build up of military arms.
This is just the beginning to my proposal. I will have an updated proposal with a working bibliography published onto the blog sometime this weekend.
Thanks, JT Liverman
Research Paper proposal
Research Paper Proposal
History 433, Dr. Margolies
By John Cunningham
The Birth of Globalization in America: Virginia, England and
International Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century
When did the birth of globalization begin in America? Where did American globalization first show signs of growth? How did the early evidence of globalization first shape American culture and society? Most importantly, how did the early signs of globalization shape American political thought and foreign policy. These are the questions I will answer in my research paper.
Most scholars and historians disagree with a precise time and place of the birth of globalization in America. Some claim that globalization first occurred when early man first made contact with a neighboring tribe and diffused their different characteristics to each other. Many others look at globalization as beginning when international trade first began within the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic trade routes along the African coast. Still others look at globalization as first occurring during the late nineteenth century after the birth of rapid transport and the telegraph. Finally, many historians look at the scientific advances of the twentieth century as being globalizations birthplace. In my research paper I will examine what I consider the birth of Globalization in America. I will examine the first signs of international trade and communication within the Chesapeake Colony in today’s current state of Virginia. This trade, particularly the sale of tobacco and the influx of slavery, diffused the cultures of many different peoples that include England, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Additionally, once slavery was established in the Virginia colony, the influence of African societies further fused into American culture. All of this contact between different cultures throughout the world helped to bring to life the early signs of American global power and influence.
While researching this topic I discovered a variety of different sources that can be examined. I first began my research by reading Atlantic Virginia by April Hatfield. This was an excellent book that explores the exact topic that I am researching. One of the subjects I will briefly cover in my writing is the question of why did Europeans first come to the New World. There are several primary documents that describe these reasons, one of which is the first charter of Virginia. This document I will be referring to in my research paper. Another great source is Captain John Smith’s history of Virginia. This book is a wealth of information that thoroughly describes the vast resources that were found in the Virginia colony.
As described above and in my Bibliography, I will use a variety of sources to answer a few simple questions. One of which, is how, why and where did globalization first occur in America? By answering this question I feel that many people will more fully understand Americas place in a global economy.
Bibliography
Coclanis, Peter A. The Atlantic Economy during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2005.
Deans, Bob. The River Where America Began. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Hatfield, April Lee. Atlantic Virginia, Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Hawke, David. The Colonial Experience. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966.
Kelso, William M. Jamestown, The Buried Truth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006.
Pestana, Carla Gardina. The English Atlantic in the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Smith, John. The General History of Virginia. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Bedford: Applewood Books, First published in 1629.
Virginia Company of London. The First Charter of Virginia.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1606-fcv.htm, 1606.
History 433, Dr. Margolies
By John Cunningham
The Birth of Globalization in America: Virginia, England and
International Trade in the Early Seventeenth Century
When did the birth of globalization begin in America? Where did American globalization first show signs of growth? How did the early evidence of globalization first shape American culture and society? Most importantly, how did the early signs of globalization shape American political thought and foreign policy. These are the questions I will answer in my research paper.
Most scholars and historians disagree with a precise time and place of the birth of globalization in America. Some claim that globalization first occurred when early man first made contact with a neighboring tribe and diffused their different characteristics to each other. Many others look at globalization as beginning when international trade first began within the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic trade routes along the African coast. Still others look at globalization as first occurring during the late nineteenth century after the birth of rapid transport and the telegraph. Finally, many historians look at the scientific advances of the twentieth century as being globalizations birthplace. In my research paper I will examine what I consider the birth of Globalization in America. I will examine the first signs of international trade and communication within the Chesapeake Colony in today’s current state of Virginia. This trade, particularly the sale of tobacco and the influx of slavery, diffused the cultures of many different peoples that include England, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Additionally, once slavery was established in the Virginia colony, the influence of African societies further fused into American culture. All of this contact between different cultures throughout the world helped to bring to life the early signs of American global power and influence.
While researching this topic I discovered a variety of different sources that can be examined. I first began my research by reading Atlantic Virginia by April Hatfield. This was an excellent book that explores the exact topic that I am researching. One of the subjects I will briefly cover in my writing is the question of why did Europeans first come to the New World. There are several primary documents that describe these reasons, one of which is the first charter of Virginia. This document I will be referring to in my research paper. Another great source is Captain John Smith’s history of Virginia. This book is a wealth of information that thoroughly describes the vast resources that were found in the Virginia colony.
As described above and in my Bibliography, I will use a variety of sources to answer a few simple questions. One of which, is how, why and where did globalization first occur in America? By answering this question I feel that many people will more fully understand Americas place in a global economy.
Bibliography
Coclanis, Peter A. The Atlantic Economy during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2005.
Deans, Bob. The River Where America Began. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Hatfield, April Lee. Atlantic Virginia, Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Hawke, David. The Colonial Experience. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1966.
Kelso, William M. Jamestown, The Buried Truth. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2006.
Pestana, Carla Gardina. The English Atlantic in the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Smith, John. The General History of Virginia. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Bedford: Applewood Books, First published in 1629.
Virginia Company of London. The First Charter of Virginia.
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1606-fcv.htm, 1606.
My Topic
I hope this makes sense - I have confused myself by reading too much about my topic :) When I cut and paste it looks messy on the blog- My papers are always very neat and orderly so excuse the ugly font, lack of bold and italics.
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)