• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.67-90
• /
• 2018

France has allowed a deprivation of nationality for terrorism since 1996 Law. After then, a series of law revision (1998, 2006 law and 2010, 2015-2015 reform tries) have not only linked an act of terror with nationality deprivation but also put the dual national and their deprivation at the centre of dispute. Both 2010 Immigration Law by Sarkozy and 2015-2016 constitutional amendment by Hollande had been not adopted but have combined immigrants and security issue together by firmly solidifying the relationship between dual national and terrorist. Especially in 2015-2016, the constitutional amendment that failed to be adopted has extended a state of emergency and left the nationality deprivation of dual national as controversial issue. After over 4 months of discussion, the amendment that contains a clause of a state of emergency and extension plan for nationality deprivation was abolished but the dual national issues which had been non-politicized has now become politicized, defined as security issues and finally securitized. It shows very two-stage process of securitization argued by Copenhagen school including Buzan. The importance of securitization notion by Copenhagen school lies on the fact that it scrutinizes the constructive elements of the process of securitization. The concept of securitization allows us to see the problem of the process that defines a non-politicized issue as security one by making it political matter. Applying this process of securitization into the controversy of nationality deprivation of dual nationals in France, we can find out the development of non-controversial and non-politicized dual national issues into social agenda by politicization through speech-act or announcement effect.

• Journal of Christian Education in Korea
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.227-253
• /
• 2023

Purpose of the Study: This paper focuses on a significant historical event, namely the Bremen teachers' movement of 1905, which aimed to abolish religious classes in public schools. By examining an incident in the German history of religious education that remains unfamiliar to the Korean Christian Association, I aim to explore the interconnected diachronic and synchronic influences involved in this particular event. Contents and Method: The religious controversy sparked by the Bremen Teacher's movement of 1905 marked the first official call for reform towards neutral religious education in schools. Several factors contributed to this debate, including the rise of civil society in the 19th century, advancements in science and scholarship, the emergence of social democracy, and the conflict between the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. This paper delves into the historical context of the controversy and analyzes its impact on the develop of religious education in Germany. As reflected in the Bremen Document, the official outcome of the Bremen Teacher's Movement, educators argued for the separation of religion and education, emphasizing that religion is a deeply personal matter. The document called for the adoption of value-neutral moral education in public schools, achieved through objective Bible-History classes. This paper explores the impact of the Bremen School Dispute of 1905 on the development of religious education in Germany. Specifically, the provisions of the Bremen State Constitution of 1948 and the German Basic Law of 1949 were influenced by the controversy, with Article 141 of the Basic Law - known as the 'Bremen Clause' - providing a legal basis for the exclusion of churches from religion-classes at Schools in Bremen. The Bible-History Classes advocated in the Bremen Documents served as the basis for the present-day Bremen religious education curriculum well known for neutral objective religion-classes. Conlusion: This study analyzes the background, content, and influence of the Bremen School Controversy, which remains relatively unknown in Korea. The findings of this study can contribute to the ongoing discussion of Christian school education in Korea, with an emphasis on maintaining a Christian identity while promoting religious publicity in the classroom.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.