共同主权的正当性

J. Ciorciari
{"title":"共同主权的正当性","authors":"J. Ciorciari","doi":"10.11126/stanford/9781503613669.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the normative debates around sovereignty sharing. It discusses the possible benefits of the practice and the numerous critiques of deep external intervention into fragile-state governance. It argues that three factors bear upon the perceived legitimacy of a sovereignty-sharing venture: host state consent, genuine humanitarian need, and strong observed or expected external performance in service delivery. It argues that to be perceived as legitimate by diverse audiences, sovereignty-sharing arrangements generally must rely heavily on performance.","PeriodicalId":398085,"journal":{"name":"Sovereignty Sharing in Fragile States","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Justifying Shared Sovereignty\",\"authors\":\"J. Ciorciari\",\"doi\":\"10.11126/stanford/9781503613669.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines the normative debates around sovereignty sharing. It discusses the possible benefits of the practice and the numerous critiques of deep external intervention into fragile-state governance. It argues that three factors bear upon the perceived legitimacy of a sovereignty-sharing venture: host state consent, genuine humanitarian need, and strong observed or expected external performance in service delivery. It argues that to be perceived as legitimate by diverse audiences, sovereignty-sharing arrangements generally must rely heavily on performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":398085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sovereignty Sharing in Fragile States\",\"volume\":\"87 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sovereignty Sharing in Fragile States\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9781503613669.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sovereignty Sharing in Fragile States","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9781503613669.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章探讨了关于主权共享的规范性争论。它讨论了这种做法可能带来的好处,以及对外部深度干预脆弱国家治理的众多批评。报告认为,影响主权共享企业合法性的因素有三个:东道国同意、真正的人道主义需求以及在服务提供方面观察到或预期到的强劲外部表现。它认为,要被不同的受众视为合法,主权共享安排通常必须在很大程度上依赖于业绩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Justifying Shared Sovereignty
This chapter examines the normative debates around sovereignty sharing. It discusses the possible benefits of the practice and the numerous critiques of deep external intervention into fragile-state governance. It argues that three factors bear upon the perceived legitimacy of a sovereignty-sharing venture: host state consent, genuine humanitarian need, and strong observed or expected external performance in service delivery. It argues that to be perceived as legitimate by diverse audiences, sovereignty-sharing arrangements generally must rely heavily on performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信