Constructive Sovereignty is an emerging theory pioneered by John Maszka intended to address globalization’s increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms that their respective constituencies will accept. Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state’s own constituency. As each state’s constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms and they will voice their acceptance of these norms both politically and (especially) as consumers.

It is therefore a central pillar of the theory that privatization is not only the driving force behind globalization, but also that private enterprise possesses the incentive to implement those international norms reflected in the preferences of consumers (profit). Private enterprise is also the primary consumer of proprietary data used to measure the preferences of consumers, and as such remains the most up-to-date source of changing consumer preferences. As private enterprise meets the increasingly international demands of consumers, it will itself become more international in scope. The cycle is self-perpetuating. In this way international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy by each state’s constituency, while state sovereignty is maintained and respected.

I don’t want to name any names, but you_know_which country does that. In fact, many of those countries do that, and they share you_know_which religion. I mean I don’t want to name names, but the name of their religion starts with I and rhymes with grand-slam.

I don’t want to name any names but a certain mountainous country (starts w/ Af and ends in stan) that in part became known for that a photo by Steve McCury of a woman taken in 1982 (heck, the guy even got a Pulitzer or something for that one shot) is probably the definition (or mecca maybe is the right word for) of female oppression.

BTW, this is completely random, but if any of you out there have poetic skills, how would you characterize the two women in the side-by-side pics in this article: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/mar/girl/

I know it is a little outlier in terms of the pictures presented on this page, but it nevertheless provides some food for thougth.

What’s his platform? “Serj is bad” is not a platform, that’s a looser talk and “no matter what you do, people follow like ship”… these are his exact words from several years ago…

http://www.willisms.com/archives/flagdisplay.gif

Incidentally, the full WILLisms post is well worth a read if you haven’t already:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/03/more_on_the_bab_1.html

And yeah, the babe theory is vital for democratic movements so here’s to the further democratization of Armenia and everywhere else, for that matter.