GLOBALIZATION , HEGEMONIC STABILITY AND IMPERIALISM CROSSING ROADS

Since the end of twentieth century the term of ‘global’ started to use so much in many activities including cultural, economic and political. Global politics, global culture, global economy and so on. All those concepts traditionally attributable to the states (nation-states) slowly become a global matter. From Mc Donald’s hamburgers to education, from trade to crime, nearly everything influenced by the ‘global’ phenomenon. Global! This term has become to something refers to the internationalization of all of these terms or the universalization of the well established norms and regimes. On the other hand globalization for some refers to deterritorialization since it is the abolishment of the artificial state borders for the ease of the global activities such as erect of the trade barriers or barriers against to the free capital flow. No doubt, high technology and revolution in communication and transportation are the main reasons why the things become global. Contemporary globalization has reached levels unseen since before 1914. The main motivations behind the changes associated with globalization unsurprisingly have become one of the most important subjects of academic debate. This in an effort to define this new process will seek answers to the questions; Does the viability of the globalisation process necessarily imply the hegemony of a great power? And Use the analyses of imperialism from the late 19^th to the early 20^th century as the basis for considering whether contemporary globalisation a form of imperialism?

Churchill - Into the Storm

End of world war two in one hand was the official end of British hegemony and the collapse of British Empire was the starting point of the bipolarization of world order for next 45 years with two super powers Soviet Union and United States. On 11 February 1945, Yalta conference agreed the 'Declaration of Liberated Europe' [1] with free elections and friendly governments to Soviets in Eastern Europe. However the notion of 'friendly' was refers not less than controlled communist government for Soviets. When the Churchill drawn the Iron Curtain between East and West,  Eastern Europe long since has been under the control of USSR. Going back to 1939, it was the second time when British Prime Ministers disappointed in their agreements which they sacrificed and gave concessions. Munich agreement of Chamberlain was also concluded some similar motivations such Yalta conference, to limit the expansion of threat by providing limited concessions. That is may be regarded as innocent as the Yalta accords. Churchill, as one of the most important figure in its critics against the appeasement, at the end of Yalta indicated his trust to its ally by ‘Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don’t believe I’m wrong about Stalin’[2].

However his policies toward Soviets did not prevent eventual unification of Eastern Europe with the soviet bloc. By 1949 his ally turned into a 'wicked but much more formidable' enemy than Hitler. This paper while in one hand compare the Yalta concessions with the 1939 appeasement, on the other hand illustrate the fluctuations in Churchill’s approach to the Soviet Union.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) is maybe the most important global convention just because it deals with world’s largest resource. Whereas it is most probable and inevitable that, world’s largest resource, its waters is the very potential area for the emergence of disputes. In regard to these disputes, by the virtue of peaceful settlement of international disputes regime created by charter, UNCLOS in Part XV has established a settlement of disputes mechanism. Part XV foresees a wide range of dispute settlement method from diplomatic settlement methods such as diplomatic negotiations, mediation, good office, enquiry or conciliation to binding jurisdictional methods. It is another importance of the UNCLOS is the creation of an International tribunal for the law of the Sea disputes (ITLOS).  ITLOS’s main function is to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention. Beyond ITLOS the part XV recognizes other binding adjudication methods such as settlement of disputes by international court of justice or by arbitration courts. The paper therefore firstly outline the essential features of the dispute settlement mechanism put forward by the UNCLOS III, and then will conclude by questioning why a complex, but flexible dispute settlement mechanism needed under UNCLOS III.