Acceptance Of State Research Articles

Stanowisko Afganistanu wobec przyjęcia instrumentów międzynarodowej ochrony praw człowieka, cz. II: lata 1973–1989

The article is the second part of studies showing Afghanistan's path towards adopting international instruments to protect human rights. Based on the acts of national and international law and historical sources, the conditions that led to the state's acceptance or rejection of international human rights treaties during the functioning of the Republic of Afghanistan was analysed. The main research goal is to show the changes in the state's political arena and the internal legal order, which conditioned the accession to the international instruments for the protection of human rights. Particular attention was paid to the state's situation in the context of international relations, including the impact of the Soviet Union on the government of Afghanistan.

Parents' Satisfaction with Kindergarten Services in Beijing at a Time of Systemic Expansion

IN 2010, CHINA'S GOVERNMENT announced that by 2020 all kindergarten-aged children will be able to gain access to at least a one-year, high-quality kindergarten experience. This announcement reflected the state's acceptance that a formal kindergarten experience can assist children to become the learners China will need as it transitions to a knowledge economy, the government's wish to reduce social inequality and the increasing proportion of families that do not have grandparents who can help care for young children. The aim of this research was to investigate parents' satisfaction with their children's kindergarten and the factors that influence their satisfaction. This mixed-method research, using survey and interview data, suggests these parents were informed consumers of early childhood education services.

Diagonal Enforcement in International Trade Politics

Scholarship on the enforcement of international legal obligations often makes a fundamental division between horizontal (inter-state retaliation) and vertical (national court) enforcement mechanisms. This paper argues that such a division of treaty enforcement mechanisms fails to capture how horizontal and vertical enforcement relationships can be combined in one important scenario, where a state's acceptance of an obligation on their domestic courts to automatically enforce trade-based treaty obligations is matched by an abandonment by the state's trading partners of more common forms of retaliation-based enforcement mechanism. On the one hand, therefore, states allow their trade treaty obligations to be automatically enforced by domestic courts, while on the other, the beneficiaries of such a commitment in other states forego any rights to threaten trade sanctions to enforce treaty obligations. Such a diagonal enforcement mechanism is illustrated with examples drawn from the World Trade Organization, European Union, Andean Community, and NAFTA Side Agreements.

The Trade & Human Rights Linkage: A Practical Solution to the Human-Rights-Enforcement Problem

This article posits that a developed State's GSP program can be used to effectively to encourage self-enforcement of human rights by their developing trading partners. It also suggests that the particular human rights targeted by a developed State will impact the developing State's acceptance (especially Asian States) of such a program.

Workfare: Servitude or success formula?

Neither welfare nor workfare is much of a “choice”. But workfare leads to real choices, freedom, and autonomy. Welfare represents the state's acceptance of its duties to honor the welfare claim rights of those citizens in real need of temporary public assistance. In contrast, workfare recognizes additional claim-rights, namely, those that enable full agency and autonomy through education for employment, with a view toward ensuring that the dependency period is indeed temporary. Critics of workfare cannot be unaware of the educational resources—especially those of open-access community colleges, open days, evenings and weekends—that taxpayers have put at the disposal of everyone who is at all serious about self-improvement.

Henry Stuart Foote: Confederate Congressman and Exile

HSNBY STUART FOOTE: CONFEDÉRATE CONGRESSMAN AND EXILE John E. Gonzales Clement Eaton, in A History of the Southern Confederacy, devotes two sentences to Henry Stuart Foote, calling attention to his "bitter tirades against Davis" and branding bin) a "traitor to the Confederacy ."1 E. Merton Coulter gives more space to Foote in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, but comes to the same conclusion, describing Foote as "incorrigible, eccentric, irascible, voluble, and restless."2 Although both historians are essentially correct , Foote's career was one of many parts, and not devoted solely to opposing the administration of Jefferson Davis. Before 1861 Foote was an ardent Unionist. During the debates over the Compromise of 1850, Henry Clay described him as "unsurpassed in firm devotion to the Union."3 Indeed, he was one of the chief architects and supporters of this, the last great sectional compromise prior to the war, and was the one Mississippian most responsible for that state's acceptance of it.4 It is not necessarily inconsistent to thus portray the same man as an outstanding Union advocate and a secessionist, although Foote himself puzzled over diis in later years. Reflecting on his career after die war, Foote admitted that his decision to join die secessionist ranks and to serve in the Confederate Congress was die "most absurd blunder of his political life," a decision he was not able to explain "in a manner entirely satisfactory even to his own judgment and sensibilities."5 It was only one of many erratic turns taken in die course of his life. !Clement Eaton, A History of the Southern Confederacy (New York, 1954), p. 64. 2E. Merton Coulter, The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 (Baton Rouge, 1950), p. 135. 3 Natchez Mississippi Free Trader, Oct. 2, 1850. ?John Edmond Gonzales, "Henry Stuart Foote: A Forgotten Unionist oi the Fifties," The Southern Quarterly, I (1963), 129-139; Holman Hamilton, Prohgue to Conflict (Lexington, 1964). 5 Gonzales, "Henry Stuart Foote: Forgotten Unionist," 138-139. 384 Born in Virginia in 1804, he migrated as a young man to Alabama and dien to Mississippi. In die years following he resided at one time or anodier in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, California, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C, as well as in England and Canada. After his wife's deadi in California in die HUd-ISSO1S, he returned to die East, remarried, and became a resident of Nashville, die home of his new bride. He changed his political loyalties almost as frequently as his place of residence. One Mississippi editor, bemused by Foote's political maneuvering, wrote: "Planters who do not go to town more than twice a week invariably inquire, 'well, which side is Gen. Foote on now!' " He held membership in the Whig, Democratic, and Know Nothing parties prior to 1860 and supported Stephen A. Douglas in die presidential election of that year. As a Democrat and Unionist he was United States senator from Mississippi from 1847 to 1852 and governor of diat state for the following two years. After his term as Confederate congressman and subsequent exile to Canada, he returned to the Democratic party only to be lured to die Republican ranks, largely by die prospects of political office. On the eve of the Civil War he was a man of no small reputation. As a stump speaker he excelled; in fact, many Mississippians considered him one of the outstanding public speakers in the country. As a writer he had gained recognition for his newspaper work and for his two-volume history entitled Texas and the Texans. In addition, he had achieved some measure of fame as a criminal lawyer. Yet, after thirty years of public life, the quick-tempered little man had few friends and many enemies. First among die latter was Jefferson Davis. As Foote recalled, "serious incompatibilities, both of taste and temper, as well as exceedingly conflicting views of men and measures," developed between diem as diey began dieir terms in die United States Senate. For some reason, now unknown, the two men came to blows at Mrs. Owners in Washington on Christmas morning, 1847. The break never healed. Indeed, subsequent events, particularly Foote's defeat of...