La critique du nationalisme de la "Semaine Sociale de Bordeaux" à la "Lutte pour la civilisation et la philosophie de la paix"

Over a long period the philosopher, Maurice Blondel, was an outspoken critic of exaggerated nationalism. The series of articles that appeared in 1909-10 in the Annales de philosophie chrétienne under the title of « La Semaine sociale de Bordeaux », and later were published in book form, contained a philosophically and theologically motivated critique of the early support shown by French Catholics for the doctrinaire nationalism of Charles Maurras. In 1928 Blondel returned to a critique of this same nationalism in his detailed article « Patrie et Humanité ». But the further criticism of nationalism contained in parts of his book Lutte pour la civilisation et philosophie de la paix, which was published in 1939 (and anew in 1947 in a slightly revised edition), was of a different order, being focused on the nationalism associated with what Blondel termed totalitarisme in its then German or Nazi form. Despite this record, it would be a mistake to assume that Blondel was an internationalist fitting clearly into the Briand mould. After the First World War Blondel favoured the hard-line foreign policy advocated by Poincaré and Foch, in particular over the future of the Rhineland. And he remained a conservative Catholic. His book of 1939 denounced not only totalitarisme in both its Nazi and Soviet forms, but also, on an opposing front, liberalism in the social and economic sphere. As to the deleterious effect of nationalism on international relations, he was an advocate of strengthening international law, notably the corpus of law emanating from The Hague. Maurice Blondel was greatly admired by Robert Schuman, the prominent French foreign minister under the Fourth Republic and a key figure for post-war European integration.

Justifying partial rescission in English law

Comments on the refusal of the English courts to recognise the existence of a remedy of partial rescission, suggesting that in certain restricted instances justification exists for the grant of such a remedy. Considers the nature of the remedy of rescission under English law, the English courts' approach towards partial rescission and the nature and scope of the discretions available to the courts, noting the decisions in TSB Bank Plc v Camfield and De Molestina v Ponton. Reviews the historical origins of the remedy of rescission, including the distinction between fraudulent and non fraudulent misrepresentation and the origins of the so called concurrent and auxiliary equitable jurisdictions. Compares the approach of the Australian courts and highlights examples of recognition of partial rescission under international law.

EU-ASEAN relations in the post-Cold War era:an analysis of the impact of normative factors on interregionalism

This thesis examines the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with a focus on why their normative elements, e.g. values and norms, affect their ties in the post-Cold War era. Since the end of the Cold War, policy-makers and academics have become interested in region-to-region interaction, termed interregionalism. Though interregionalism is considered to have become an indelible feature of post-Cold War international politics, there are question marks over its importance. It is often argued that interregionalism reinforces the collective identity of the regional organisations involved. It is also maintained that its overall relevance to the international system depends on the level of actorness, which is primarily measured in institutional and material terms, of the participant regional organisations. This thesis contends that the normative components of the EU and ASEAN are also fundamental constituents of their actorness and, consequently, define significantly their interregionalism. This is based on a crucial observation that normative factors are of importance to the regional and international relations of the EU and ASEAN. Yet, while they strongly espouse norms and values to guide their internal and external activities, their normative premises radically differ from each other. Furthermore, these normative differences jeopardise their cooperation. Building on this observation the inquiry takes the normative components of the EU and ASEAN as the criterion as well as the focus for investigating their interregionalism. In doing so, it hypothesises that the EU and ASEAN are two different regional actors that adopt two dissimilar sets of norms to conduct their regional and international affairs and that such normative differences hinder their relations. Within this hypothesis, it seeks to address three central questions. First, what are the normative features that constitute the EU and ASEAN as actors in world politics and that make them different from each other? Second, what are the main sources of their normative differences? Finally, why do their normative differences become an obstructive factor in their relationship? To address these issues, the inquiry adopts a constructivist interpretation (of International Relations) and opts for a narrative and empirical inquiry, which is based on information and data acquired from official documents, scholarly works and interviews and questionnaires. In doing so, it finds that as they were born and evolved in two dissimilar temporal and spatial settings, the EU and ASEAN are two different norm entrepreneurs and normative powers. The former advocates a set of liberal cosmopolitan norms whereas the latter champions a set of traditional communitarian principles. Their normative differences become a major obstacle to their cooperation, especially when one regional organisation’s norms are refused or violated by the other. Thus, a key lesson drawn from these findings is that in order to explain more fully EU-ASEAN interregionalism, it is essential to consider their norms, the reasons behind their normative differences and the implication of those differences to their relations