Search

The article analyses the renewed importance of bilateralism for the UK's engagement with individual EU member states in relation to security and defence policy. By systematically scrutinising the bilateral agreements with 18 EU countries concluded between the EU membership referendum in 2016 and the end of Boris Johnson's premiership in 2022, we argue that the United Kingdom currently finds itself in the process of transitioning from one policy regime (multilateralism) to another (bilateralism); we try to make sense of this strategy by looking at it through the lens of four key aspects stemming from regime theory, namely (1) triggering factors; (2) institutional design and adaptation; (3) path dependency; and (4) regime sustainability. The analysis shows how the sustainability of a purely bilateral regime, with its high degree of customisation and intrinsic reliance on specific reciprocity, is precarious, albeit while leaving open the possibility to incorporate a future multilateral component. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to some dialetheists, we ought to reject the distinction between object and meta‐languages. Given that dialetheists advocate truth‐value gluts within their object‐language, whether in order to solve the liar paradox or for some other reason, this rejection of the object‐/meta‐language distinction comes with the commitment to use a glutty metatheory. While it has been pointed out that a glutty metatheory brings with it expressive deficiencies, we highlight here another complication arising from the use of a glutty metatheory, this time evidential in nature. According to this countermodel problem, while the thoroughgoing dialetheist who embraces a glutty metatheory can justify their acceptance of a rule of inference's invalidity using countermodels, to justify their renunciation of an unwanted rule they actually require the means to warrant their rejection of the rule's validity—which cannot be supplied by countermodels based on a standard dialetheic semantics. We end by sketching out a possible solution for the thoroughgoing dialetheist using a bilaterialist semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a comment on a translation of Franz von Kutschera's paper ‘Ein verallgemeinerter Widerlegungsbegriff für Gentzenkalküle’, which was published in German in 1969. The paper is an important predecessor of what is nowadays called ‘proof-theoretic semantics’, which describes the view that the meaning of logical connectives is determined by the rules governing their use in a proof system. Von Kutschera adopts this view in this paper, and more specifically, a bilateralist view on this subject in that his aim is to give a general framework that provides generalized rule schemata for arbitrary connectives both for proving and refuting and to use this as a reference to prove completeness of certain systems of operators purely proof-theoretically. The main logical system in focus here has been shown to be equivalent to N4, Nelson's constructive logic with strong negation. In order to understand the translated paper better, a contextualizing comment is offered referring and relating it to a preceding paper by von Kutschera. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to an intuitive picture of relevant entailment, an entailment is relevant if all the formulas it contains contribute to its validity. In this paper, we provide a ground-theoretic analysis of this notion of contribution, and as a result of relevant entailment. We build a system of bilateral logical grounding within which we can derive classical entailment and analyze the contribution of premises and conclusions, in terms of a certain type of connection between their respective logical grounds. The resulting framework is shown to have a strong unifying and explanatory power by bringing together the notions of grounding and relevance and explaining the commonalities and differences between alternative contribution-based accounts of relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for mutual influence or "spillover" between economic and security cooperation is a long-standing area of interest for policymakers and scholars alike. This paper examines how network dynamics affect spillover. We focus on two prominent types of formal bilateral cooperation—defense cooperation agreements (DCAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs)—both of which have proliferated dramatically in the post-Cold War international system. We argue that existing theoretical and empirical approaches to economic-security spillover focus too strictly on influences at the bilateral level. As with other forms of international cooperation, BITs and DCAs comprise larger international networks. Governments develop portfolios of BITs or DCAs with distinct structural goals in mind, and they implement specific strategies in pursuing those goals. With BITs, governments follow a network-hierarchy strategy that allows them to influence treaty design and protect their firms. In DCAs, governments instead favor a network-community strategy focused on pooling collective security goods among groups of like-minded collaborators. When these network strategies complement one another, they promote cooperative economic-security spillover. When they conflict, however, they inhibit spillover, such that cooperation in economic or security issues discourages cooperation in the opposing issue area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the puzzling behavior of ordinary knowledge ascriptions that embed an epistemic (im)possibility claim, we tentatively conclude that it is untenable to jointly endorse (i) an unfettered classical logic for epistemic language, (ii) the general veridicality of knowledge ascription, and (iii) an intuitive 'negative transparency' thesis that reduces knowledge of a simple negated 'might' claim to an epistemic claim without modal content. We motivate a strategic trade-off: preserve veridicality and (generalized) negative transparency, while abandoning the general validity of contraposition. We criticize various approaches to incorporating veridicality into domain semantics, a paradigmatic 'information-sensitive' framework for capturing negative transparency and, more generally, the non-classical behavior of sentences with epistemic modals. We then present a novel information-sensitive semantics that successfully executes our favored strategy: stable acceptance semantics, extending a vanilla bilateral state-based semantics for epistemic modals with a knowledge operator loosely inspired by the defeasibility theory of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bilateral proof systems, which provide rules for both affirming and denying sentences, have been prominent in the development of proof-theoretic semantics for classical logic in recent years. However, such systems provide a substantial amount of freedom in the formulation of the rules, and, as a result, a number of different sets of rules have been put forward as definitive of the meanings of the classical connectives. In this paper, I argue that a single general schema for bilateral proof rules has a reasonable claim to inferentially articulating the core meaning of all of the classical connectives. I propose this schema in the context of a bilateral sequent calculus in which each connective is given exactly two rules: a rule for affirmation and a rule for denial. Positive and negative rules for all of the classical connectives are given by a single rule schema, harmony between these positive and negative rules is established at the schematic level by a pair of elimination theorems, and the truth-conditions for all of the classical connectives are read off at once from the schema itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rumfitt has given two arguments that in unilateralist verificationist theories of meaning, truth collapses into correct assertibility. In the present paper I give similar arguments that show that in unilateral falsificationist theories of meaning, falsehood collapses into correct deniability. According to bilateralism, meanings are determined by assertion and denial conditions, so the question arises whether it succumbs to similar arguments. I show that this is not the case. The final section considers the question whether a principle central to Rumfitt's first argument, 'It is assertible that A if and only if it is assertible that it is assertible that A', is one that bilateralists can reject, and concludes that they cannot. It follows that the logic of assertibility and deniability, according to a result by Williamson, is the little known modal logic K4 studied by Sobociński. The paper ends with a plaidoyer for bilateralists to adopt this logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Not least in view of the past decade, crises in the European Union (EU) have attracted much scholarly attention. At the same time, difficult decision-making situations and turning points have always been parts of the European integration process. Moreover, as founding and the two largest member states, France and Germany have been key drivers in the development of today's EU polity. Strikingly, a systematic analysis of major crises covering the entire integration process and the comparative role that France–Germany have played, so far is lacking. Scholars tend to focus on instances of 'successful' crisis resolution or, more recently, on a presumably hegemonic Germany. This article, by contrast, argues and demonstrates why and how France and Germany, together, have been essential for the management and resolution of European-level political controversies and deadlock. To do so, the article considers nine major integration crises. It highlights different ways and means of bilateral leadership and their resulting impact on European integration. Case selection includes both successful crisis management and instances of failed or absent leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to illustrate that multi-vectorial approaches in foreign policy could not only be practical but also productive for middle powers. With this aim, the study conceptualizes Turkish foreign policy in Asia with multi-vectorism, a foreign policy behavioral pattern that has been mainly utilized for post-Soviet countries' concurrent interactions with the West (the EU, the U.S.) and the non-West (Russia). The study, firstly, argues that Asian international relations require a more composite re-definition of multi-vectorism, since in Asia, due to the intra-regional fragmentations and diversions, there are more than the conventional two vectors, the West and the non-West. By considering this argument the study applies multi-vectorism to Türkiye's foreign policy in Asia by comparing the practicability of different interaction patterns, e.g., multilateralism, minilateralism, and bilateralism. The study, secondly, argues that Türkiye's multi-vectorial foreign policy in Asia is particularly successful in its bilateral relations and less so in its multilateral and minilateral interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transregionalism is identified with loose and less-institutional interactions functioning via both state and non-state actors. Its lesser need for multilateral and ruled-based institutions makes transregionalism naturally flexible, multifaceted, and more bilateralism-oriented. Türkiye's enthusiasm to deepen relations with Asia, which was officially encapsulated within the Asia Anew initiative (2019), is a good example of such multifaceted transregional bilateralism. The initiative prioritized this interaction scheme by stressing the importance of inter-agency mechanisms operating via state and non-state stakeholders. Accordingly, this study argues that Türkiye's interactions with South Asia, especially regarding state/people-to-people relations, which merge state with non-state actors can be analyzed within the conceptual framework of transregional bilateralism. Departing from this premise, this study argues that the geocultural affinities between the South Asian and Turkish communities perform as the main "booster" of this framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we will consider the existing notions of bilateralism in the context of proof-theoretic semantics and propose, based on our understanding of bilateralism, an extension to logical multilateralism. This approach differs from what has been proposed under this name before in that we do not consider multiple speech acts as the core of such a theory but rather multiple consequence relations. We will argue that for this aim the most beneficial proof-theoretical realization is to use sequent calculi with multiple sequent arrows satisfying some specific conditions, which we will lay out in this paper. We will unfold our ideas with the help of a case study in logical tetralateralism and present an extension of Almukdad and Nelson's propositional constructive four-valued logic by unary operations of meaningfulness and nonsensicality. We will argue that in sequent calculi with multiple sequent arrows it is possible to maintain certain features that are desirable if we assume an understanding of the meaning of connectives in the spirit of proof-theoretic semantics. The use of multiple sequent arrows will be justified by the presence of congruentiality-breaking unary connectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent paper del Valle-Inclan and Schlöder argue that bilateral calculi call for their own notion of proof-theoretic harmony, distinct from the usual (or ‘unilateral’) ones. They then put forward a specifically bilateral criterion of harmony, and present a harmonious bilateral calculus for classical logic. In this paper, I show how del Valle-Inclan and Schlöder’s criterion of harmony suggests a notion of normal form for bilateral systems, and prove normalisation for two (harmonious) bilateral calculi for classical logic, HB1 and HB2. The resulting normal derivations have the usual desirable features, like the separation and subformula properties. HB1-normal form turns out to be strictly stronger that the notion of normal form proposed by Nils Kürbis, and HB2-normal form is neither stronger nor weaker than a similar proposal by Marcello D’Agostino, Dov Gabbay, and Sanjay Modgyl.

Proof-theoretic semantics is an inferentialist theory of meaning originally developed in a unilateral framework. Its extension to bilateral systems opens both opportunities and problems. The problems are caused especially by Coordination Principles (a kind of rule that is not present in unilateral systems) and mismatches between rules for assertion and rules for rejection. In this paper, a solution is proposed for two major issues: the availability of a reduction procedure for tonk and the existence of harmonious rules for the paradoxical zero-ary connective \(\bullet\). The solution is based on a reinterpretation of bilateral rules as complex rules, that is, rules that introduce or eliminate connectives in a subordinate position. Looking at bilateral rules from this perspective, the problems faced by bilateralism can be seen as special cases of general problems of complex systems, which have been already analyzed in the literature. In the end, a comparison with other proposed solutions underlines the need for further investigation in order to complete the picture of bilateral proof-theoretic semantics.

We consider an approach to propositional synonymy in proof-theoretic semantics that is defined with respect to a bilateral G3-style sequent calculus \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) for the bi-intuitionistic logic \(\mathtt{2Int}\). A distinctive feature of \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) is that it makes use of two kind of sequents, one representing proofs, the other representing refutations. The structural rules of \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\), in particular its cut rules, are shown to be admissible. Next, interaction rules are defined that allow transitions from proofs to refutations, and vice versa, mediated through two different negation connectives, the well-known implies-falsity negation and the less well-known coimplies-truth negation of \(\mathtt{2Int}\). By assuming that the interaction rules have no impact on the identity of derivations, the concept of inherited identity between derivations in \(\mathtt{SC2Int}\) is introduced and the notions of positive and negative synonymy of formulas are defined. Several examples are given of distinct formulas that are either positively or negatively synonymous. It is conjectured that the two conditions cannot be satisfied simultaneously.

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the paradigm of semantics in which meaning in logic is based on proof (as opposed to truth). A particular instance of P-tS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) is its base-extension semantics (B-eS). This semantics is given by a relation called support, explaining the meaning of the logical constants, which is parameterized by systems of rules called bases that provide the semantics of atomic propositions. In this paper, we interpret bases as collections of definite formulae and use the operational view of them as provided by uniform proof-search—the proof-theoretic foundation of logic programming (LP)—to establish the completeness of IPL for the B-eS. This perspective allows negation, a subtle issue in P-tS, to be understood in terms of the negation-as-failure protocol in LP. Specifically, while the denial of a proposition is traditionally understood as the assertion of its negation, in B-eS we may understand the denial of a proposition as the failure to find a proof of it. In this way, assertion and denial are both prime concepts in P-tS.

Natural deduction with alternatives extends Gentzen–Prawitz-style natural deduction with a single structural addition: negatively signed assumptions, called alternatives. It is a mildly bilateralist, single-conclusion natural deduction proof system in which the connective rules are unmodi_ed from the usual Prawitz introduction and elimination rules — the extension is purely structural. This framework is general: it can be used for (1) classical logic, (2) relevant logic without distribution, (3) affine logic, and (4) linear logic, keeping the connective rules fixed, and varying purely structural rules. The key result of this paper is that the two principles that introduce kinds of irrelevance to natural deduction proofs: (a) the rule of explosion (from a contradiction, anything follows); and (b) the structural rule of vacuous discharge; are shown to be two sides of a single coin, in the same way that they correspond to the structural rule of weakening in the sequent calculus. The paper also includes a discussion of assumption classes, and how they can play a role in treating additive connectives in substructural natural deduction.

Natural language does not express all connectives definable in classical logic as simple lexical items. Coordination in English is expressed by conjunction and, disjunction or, and negated disjunction nor. Other languages pattern similarly. Non-lexicalized connectives are typically expressed compositionally: in English, negated conjunction is typically expressed by combining negation and conjunction (not both). This is surprising: if ∧ and ∨ are duals, and the negation of the latter can be expressed lexically (nor), why not the negation of the former? I present a two-tiered model of the semantics of the binary connectives. The first tier captures the expressive power of the lexicon: it is a bilateral state-based semantics that, under a restriction, can express all and only the distinctions that can be expressed by the lexicon of natural language (and, or, nor). This first tier is characterized by rejection as non-assertion and a Neglect Zero assumption. The second tier is obtained by dropping the Neglect Zero assumption and enforcing a stronger notion of rejection, thereby recovering classical logic and thus definitions for all Boolean connectives. On the two-tiered model, we distinguish the limited expressive resources of the lexicon and the greater combinatorial expressive power of the language as a whole. This gives us a logic-based account of compositionality for the Boolean fragment of the language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Filinski and Griffin have independently succeeded in extending the formulae-as-types notion to deal with continuations. Whereas Griffin adopted control operators primitively, Filinski adopted the duality of functions to construct a symmetric lambda-calculus in which continuations are first-class objects. In this paper, we construct a typed lambda-calculus with first-class configurations consisting of expressions and continuations of the same types. Our calculus corresponds to a natural deduction based on Rumfitt's bilateralism. Function types are represented as the implication and but-not connectives in intuitionistic and paraconsistent logics, respectively. Our calculus is not only logically consistent, but also computationally consistent. Our calculus with call-by-value and call-by-name strategies correspond to Wadler's call-by-value and call-by-name dual calculi, respectively. Furthermore, we propose a notion of relaxed configurations, which loosely take expressions and continuations of different types. We confirm that the relaxedness defines control operators for delimited continuations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent paper del Valle-Inclan and Schloder argue that bilateral calculi call for their own notion of proof-theoretic harmony, distinct from the usual (or 'unilateral') ones. They then put forward a specifically bilateral criterion of harmony, and present a harmonious bilateral calculus for classical logic. In this paper, I show how del Valle-Inclan and Schlöder's criterion of harmony suggests a notion of normal form for bilateral systems, and prove normalisation for two (harmonious) bilateral calculi for classical logic, HB1 and HB2. The resulting normal derivations have the usual desirable features, like the separation and subformula properties. HB1-normal form turns out to be strictly stronger that the notion of normal form proposed by Nils Kurbis, and HB2-normal form is neither stronger nor weaker than a similar proposal by Marcello D'Agostino, Dov Gabbay, and Sanjay Modgyl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proof-theoretic semantics is an inferentialist theory of meaning originally developed in a unilateral framework. Its extension to bilateral systems opens both opportunities and problems. The problems are caused especially by Coordination Principles (a kind of rule that is not present in unilateral systems) and mismatches between rules for assertion and rules for rejection. In this paper, a solution is proposed for two major issues: the availability of a reduction procedure for tonk and the existence of harmonious rules for the paradoxical zero-ary connective •. The solution is based on a reinterpretation of bilateral rules as com-plex rules, that is, rules that introduce or eliminate connectives in a subordinate position. Looking at bilateral rules from this perspective, the problems faced by bilateralism can be seen as special cases of general problems of complex systems, which have been already analyzed in the literature. In the end, a comparison with other proposed solutions underlines the need for further investigation in order to complete the picture of bilateral proof-theoretic semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inferentialism is a theory in the philosophy of language which claims that the meanings of expressions are constituted by inferential roles or relations. Instead of a traditional model-theoretic semantics, it naturally lends itself to a proof-theoretic semantics, where meaning is understood in terms of inference rules with a proof system. Most work in proof-theoretic semantics has focused on logical constants, with comparatively little work on the semantics of non-logical vocabulary. Drawing on Robert Brandom's notion of material inference and Greg Restall's bilateralist interpretation of the multiple conclusion sequent calculus, I present a proof-theoretic semantics for atomic sentences and their constituent names and predicates. The resulting system has several interesting features: (1) the rules are harmonious and stable; (2) the rules create a structure analogous to familiar model-theoretic semantics; and (3) the semantics is compositional, in that the rules for atomic sentences are determined by those for their constituent names and predicates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to counter China’s rising influence, US is finding more allies in South Asia. As a result, it has been signing various agreements with India to strengthen its footsteps in the region. Due to the mutual interests and shared values of both the partners, they have come close to each other through the civil nuclear cooperation. This is causing a number of concerns for the neighbors as US-India partnership is proving highly beneficial for both of the states at the international arena. India is becoming a source of balancing power for the US to retain its influence in the Pacific and Indian oceans against the rising power, China and its allies. Contrary to this, India is also getting benefit from US in terms of strengthening its military capabilities using the state-of-the-art technologies provided by the US, posing many security implications for the adversaries and neighbors of India. India-US strategic partnership is causing a shift in balance of power in India’s favor which can be dangerous for Pakistan’s security. In this scenario, Pakistan can never afford to remain oblivious of the developments taking place between these two countries because of its security concerns. These developments can undermine Pakistan’s deterrent capabilities and can weaken its position in the Indo-Pak strife over the Kashmir issue. Consequently, Pakistan will have to work with China to strengthen its bond to counter the negative effects caused by the USIndia partnership. Also, it will have to rethink its foreign policy towards the eastern countries and will have to establish cordial bilateral relations with its neighbors. This paper covers all the aspects of bilateral partnership between India and the USA and its implications for Pakistan economically, politically, strategically and diplomatically. This research aims to analyze the emerging strategic partnership between the United States and India and its implications for Pakistan. Moreover, a descriptive-analytical method has been adopted to carry out this research work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proof-theoretic semantics (P-tS) is the paradigm of semantics in which meaning in logic is based on proof (as opposed to truth). A particular instance of P-tS for intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) is its base-extension semantics (B-eS). This semantics is given by a relation called support, explaining the meaning of the logical constants, which is parameterized by systems of rules called bases that provide the semantics of atomic propositions. In this paper, we interpret bases as collections of definite formulae and use the operational view of them as provided by uniform proof-search|the proof-theoretic foundation of logic programming (LP)|to establish the completeness of IPL for the B-eS. This perspective allows negation, a subtle issue in P-tS, to be understood in terms of the negation-as-failure protocol in LP. Specifically, while the denial of a proposition is traditionally understood as the assertion of its negation, in B-eS we may understand the denial of a proposition as the failure to find a proof of it. In this way, assertion and denial are both prime concepts in P-tS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We consider an approach to propositional synonymy in proof-theoretic semantics that is defined with respect to a bilateral G3-style sequent calculus SC2Int for the bi-intuitionistic logic 2Int. A distinctive feature of SC2Int is that it makes use of two kinds of sequents, one representing proofs, the other representing refutations. The structural rules of SC2Int, in particular its cut rules, are shown to be admissible. Next, interaction rules are defined that allow transitions from proofs to refutations, and vice versa, mediated through two different negation connectives, the well-known implies-falsity negation and the less well-known coimplies-truth negation of 2Int. By assuming that the interaction rules have no impact on the identity of derivations, the concept of inherited identity between derivations in SC2Int is introduced and the notions of positive and negative synonymy of formulas are defined. Several examples are given of distinct formulas that are either positively or negatively synonymous. It is conjectured that the two conditions cannot be satisfied simultaneously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural deduction with alternatives extends Gentzen-Prawitz-style natural deduction with a single structural addition: negatively signed assumptions, called alternatives. It is a mildly bilateralist, single-conclusion natural deduction proof system in which the connective rules are unmodified from the usual Prawitz introduction and elimination rules|the extension is purely structural. This framework is general: it can be used for (1) classical logic, (2) relevant logic without distribution, (3) affine logic, and (4) linear logic, keeping the connective rules fixed, and varying purely structural rules. The key result of this paper is that the two principles that introduce kinds of irrelevance to natural deduction proofs: (a) the rule of explosion (from a contradiction, anything follows); and (b) the structural rule of vacuous discharge; are shown to be two sides of a single coin, in the same way that they correspond to the structural rule of weakening in the sequent calculus. The paper also includes a discussion of assumption classes, and how they can play a role in treating additive connectives in substructural natural deduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Middle East and South Asia can be defined as interlinked political spaces that experience deepening interactions of their energetic and ambitious regional powers together with the constant strategic competition of major global powers. This vibrancy has been relentlessly fuelled by the geo-economic/political/strategic, and humanitarian needs of these two regions' actors. Since there are no regional groupings effectively representing the two regions these interactions are mostly minilateral or bilateral and are bolstered by historical, cultural and religious affinities. Yet, due to the relatively higher power status of the Middle East, these transregional interactions operate on an asymmetrical basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The politico-economically uneven structure, fragile inter-state affairs and weak regionalism of the Middle East make it difficult to explain its interactions with South Asia within a single theoretical pattern. Neither interregionalism nor multilateralism could illuminate these interactions individually. This study merges recently popularized interaction schemes of minilateralism and bilateralism on a transregional basis to provide an eclectic and flexible conceptual framework to explain the patterns of Middle East–South Asia inter-state affairs. It argues that regardless of its weak regionalism and intra-regional power games, the Middle East, with these trendy interaction schemes, could still develop effective inter-state relations with South Asia. The study utilizes the empirical analysis method to interpret various levels and types of interactions between actors of various capabilities. In addition, it also uses case studies to produce a deeper context-dependent knowledge of Middle Eastern – South Asian actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of over half a dozen unilateral European Union (EU) trade policy instruments in the past few years seems to represent a major shift to the EU's previous focus on bilateral and multilateral avenues. This article investigates the origins of the recent unilateralization of EU trade policy and the main characteristics of the new instruments. What are the new instruments' goals and why does the EU introduce them now? We identify six key determinants of this trend: the rise of state interventions, increasing sustainability ambitions, a more adverse geopolitical context, the paralysis of the multilateral trading system, the resistance to bilateral trade agreements and changing preferences within key Member States. The instruments can be divided in three clusters focused on competitiveness, sustainability, and security. They share to a larger or lesser degree five key features: reciprocity, deterrence, built-in engagement, extension of internal policies, and the pursuit of international public goods. Our analysis points at a unilateral turn with EU characteristics, offering a framework for studying trade unilateralization in comparative perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of refugees in host nations may depend upon several factors, including the economic situation of the receiving state, political alignments, international commitments, ethnic affinities, the domestic refugee regime, security considerations and bilateral ties with the home country. The study aims to discern the role that bilateral ties and domestic considerations play in the refugee experience. Is there a pattern that can be drawn out from these two factors? The article uses neoclassical realist and critical theories to better understand the phenomena, while employing the case study method to make a comparative study. The study analyses how India and Turkey have dealt with refugees belonging to two ethnic minorities of the Republic of China: the Tibetans and the Uyghurs. The results show that the way the receiving states handle refugees depends greatly on domestic considerations. It becomes clear that even though bilateral ties between the host and the home nation are important, no simple deduction can be made on how this affects the treatment of refugees. Both cases provide varied response patterns; it is only through a blend of realpolitik and critical theory that the phenomena can be understood. Mapping refugees and their movements, as well as their status in the host countries, determines many of the policies created for their welfare. The article therefore attempts to provide a framework for a better understanding of the phenomena by considering bilateral ties and domestic considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some think that logic concerns the "laws of truth"; others that logic concerns the "laws of thought." This paper presents a way to reconcile both views by building a bridge between truth-maker theory, à la Fine, and normative bilateralism, à la Restall and Ripley. The paper suggests a novel way of understanding consequence in truth-maker theory and shows that this allows us to identify a common structure shared by truth-maker theory and normative bilateralism. We can thus transfer ideas from normative bilateralism to truth-maker theory, such as non-transitive solutions to paradox, and vice versa, such as notions of factual equivalence and containment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The categoricity problem for a system of logic reveals an asymmetry between the model-theoretic and the proof-theoretic resources of that logic. In particular, it reveals prima facie that the proof-theoretic instruments are insufficient for matching the envisaged model-theory, when the latter is already available. Among the proposed solutions for solving this problem, some make use of new proof-theoretic instruments, some others introduce new model-theoretic constrains on the proof-systems, while others try to use instruments from both sides. On the proof-theoretical side, two main approaches for solving the categoricity problem for propositional classical logic consist in the enforcement of the formal systems of this logic by introducing rules of inference of a new kind. A multiple-conclusions logic allows rules of inference with more than one conclusion, while a bilateralist system contains rules of inference formulated in terms of assertion and rejection. Both these approaches reveal interesting formal features of logical reasoning. This paper analyses some of the advantages and limitations of these two approaches as solutions for a full formalization of logic, i.e., for a categorical formalization [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to provide a philosophical interpretation of bilateralism in terms of probabilism. In particular, to interpret the main concepts of bilateralism –acceptance, rejection and incoherence– in terms of the probabilistic notions of degree of belief and coherence. According to bilateralism, the meaning of logical connectives is determined by the acceptance and rejection conditions of the sentences in which they are involved, where acceptance and rejection cannot be reduced to one another. I will focus on a variant of bilateralism that understands logical consequence as the statement that it is incoherent to accept all the premises of a valid argument while rejecting all its conclusions. On the other hand, probabilism states that it is possible to interpret our degrees of belief in terms of probabilities. The aim of this work is then to interpret the concept of incoherence in terms of probability functions and determine when it is coherent to accept or to reject a proposition according to some threshold defined in terms of degrees of belief. To achieve this goal, we need both an interpretation of the concept of incoherence coined by the bilateralists as well as an interpretation of acceptance and rejection. I will show that a good interpretation of coherence in probabilistic terms can already be found in the literature. Then, I will give an interpretation of acceptance and rejection in terms of degrees of belief. In particular, I will show that it is possible to interpret these concepts in accordance with Locke’s thesis, the thesis that states that there is some threshold r such that if you believe some sentence in degree equal or higher than r you should accept it, without falling into epistemic paradoxes.

This paper provides an inferentialist motivation for a logic belonging in the connexive family, by borrowing elements from the bilateralist interpretation for Classical Logic without the Cut rule, proposed by David Ripley. The paper focuses on the relation between inferentialism and relevance, through the exploration of what we call relevant assertion and denial, showing that a connexive system emerges as a symptom of this interesting link. With the present attempt we hope to broaden the available interpretations for connexive logics, showing they can be rightfully motivated in terms of certain relevantist constraints imposed on assertion and denial.

Besides the increasing scope of transnational activities of civil society actors, international relations of national legislatures have long been expanding, yet without attracting substantial scholarly attention. We can observe that national Members of Parliament meet in various bi-and multilateral organisational forms within and beyond international organisations to fulfil parliamentary functions. We present a conceptual framework differentiating between two forms of international parliamentary relations: multilateral vs. bilateral organisation. We argue that multilateral participation is mostly driven by the supply of such organisations and can mainly be found in Europe and Africa. On the contrary, the capacity of chambers can explain the realisation of bilateral channels. We test our claims with data for the international relations of 144 national parliaments. Our explorative empirical study is the first to jointly analyse bi- and multilateral transnational parliamentary relations and shows that international parliamentary cooperation varies over legislatures and regions, generating genuine clusters of institutionalised communities. Our findings help to embed the existing research on international parliamentary institutions and diplomacy in a larger context of international relations. Furthermore, our global relational account of national parliaments speaks to research on diverse topics of domestic outcomes, such as democratisation, norm and legal diffusion, and governmental control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective/Context: In this study, we aim to evaluate the expansion of bilateralism. Indeed, the multilateralism-regionalism dichotomy fails to accurately account for the scopes of trade integration occurring in the past two decades. Methodology: In order to assess the rise of bilateralism, we methodologically choose to examine the protagonist role played by China and the US in the international integration scenario. Conclusions: Empirically, our results show that China and the US hold roughly the same number of FTAs in effect. Our results unveil three major discrepancies that stand out as distinguishing national strategies towards trade agreements. First, concerning profile policy – we show, confirming previous theoretical studies, that the US follows a standard trade strategy while China favors an idiosyncratic posture in the scope of its trade deals. Second, we find out that China shows a clear preference for making trade deals with neighboring countries, which ratifies China´s strategy to consolidate its regional hegemony in Asia. Third, our hypothesis of political proximity proves to be more influential to Chinese trade authorities’ initiatives. Originality: Our main contribution lies in comparing bilateral and regional/multilateral trade agreements regarding the scope of goods and services, the geopolitical context, and the degree of policy flexibility. Theoretically, we show that regionalism and bilateralism benefit its parties by negotiating profits and losses in trade deals; the latter allows for an even more tailored agreement via discretionary measures pertinent to the countries’ needs.

Copyright of Análisis Filosófico is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Filosofico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

What are the implications of Brexit for the nature, role, and potential of Franco-German leadership in the EU? Brexit, we contend, is both an expression and a further cause of two broader underlying developments in the contemporary EU: First, a stronger and more prominent German part and position, and second, disintegrative tendencies in several EU policy fields and the EU polity as a whole. This, in turn, has major implications for Franco-German bilateralism and for Franco-German leadership in the EU. In light of a stronger Germany, a relatively weaker France, and significant centrifugal forces, the two largest EU member states must not only realign their bilateral relationship but must also act as a stabilizer in and for the EU. We show that during the EU’s recent crises, not least during the Brexit negotiations and the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, France and Germany did exercise joint leadership. We also show, however, that major discrepancies persist between the two countries in particular policy fields and with regard to longer-term European objectives. Brexit, with its numerous calamities and implications, thus once again moves Franco-German leadership—and its shortcomings—to center stage in Europe. When it comes to leadership in the EU, there remains no viable alternative to the Franco-German duo. Yet, in order to provide constructive leadership and successfully shape the EU, the two countries must bridge substantial differences and be ready to carry disproportionately high burdens.

A prolonged debate arises whether bilateralism or multilateralism is the most effective path to achieve mutual consensus among parties in the South China Sea dispute. This study identifies bilateral approach negativity to settle such a complex and overlapping dispute existed in that area grounded by two considerations. First, bilateralism is a non-transparent scheme of bargaining process. Due to bilateral implementation only conducted by two states, the more powerful actor will escape from the scrutiny of others, thus making it possesses the opportunity to put forward discriminatory bid and robust sphere to suppress other party’s stance. The bilateral approach would result in a non-consensus agreement for less powerful parties. Second, the conflictual area draws the involvement of more than three sovereign parties with overlapping claims. Multilateralism, negotiation framework for multi-parties, is the most, perhaps the only, promising path to ease the existing tension numerous parties into the stage of consensus. Moreover, multilateralism may present positive norms – transparency and non-unilateralism – that could guide the involving parties to create consensus. The analysis of this paper obtained from utilization of qualitative data, library research methods, and by the comprehension of three conceptual frameworks, bilateralism, multilateralism, and consensus.