@article{Reiners2021, author = {Reiners, Nina}, title = {Despite or Because of Contestation?}, series = {Human Rights Quarterly}, volume = {43}, journal = {Human Rights Quarterly}, number = {2}, publisher = {Johns Hopkins Univ.}, address = {New York}, issn = {1085-794X}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2021.0021}, pages = {329 -- 343}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Almost twenty years after its recognition in international human rights law, the human right to water continues to spark discussions about its scope and meaning. This article revisits the evolution and contestation of the right's first international legal framework, General Comment No. 15 from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The analysis highlights the contestation of economic and social rights as a universal phenomenon at multiple levels, but argues that these meaning-making practices can support their validation and recognition.}, language = {en} } @article{FleischerReiners2021, author = {Fleischer, Julia and Reiners, Nina}, title = {Connecting international relations and public administration}, series = {International studies review}, volume = {23}, journal = {International studies review}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1521-9488}, doi = {10.1093/isr/viaa097}, pages = {1230 -- 1247}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The recent debate on administrative bodies in international organizations has brought forward multiple theoretical perspectives, analytical frameworks, and methodological approaches. Despite these efforts to advance knowledge on these actors, the research program on international public administrations (IPAs) has missed out on two important opportunities: reflection on scholarship in international relations (IR) and public administration and synergies between these disciplinary perspectives. Against this backdrop, the essay is a discussion of the literature on IPAs in IR and public administration. We found influence, authority, and autonomy of international bureaucracies have been widely addressed and helped to better understand the agency of such non-state actors in global policy-making. Less attention has been given to the crucial macro-level context of politics for administrative bodies, despite the importance in IR and public administration scholarship. We propose a focus on agency and politics as future avenues for a comprehensive, joint research agenda for international bureaucracies.}, language = {en} } @article{Reiners2021, author = {Reiners, Nina}, title = {Despite or because of contestation?}, series = {Human rights quarterly : a comparative and international journal of the social sciences, humanities, and law}, volume = {43}, journal = {Human rights quarterly : a comparative and international journal of the social sciences, humanities, and law}, number = {2}, publisher = {Johns Hopkins Univ. Press}, address = {Baltimore}, issn = {0275-0392}, doi = {10.1353/hrq.2021.0021}, pages = {329 -- 343}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Almost twenty years after its recognition in international human rights law, the human right to water continues to spark discussions about its scope and meaning. This article revisits the evolution and contestation of the right's first international legal framework, General Comment No. 15 from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The analysis highlights the contestation of economic and social rights as a universal phenomenon at multiple levels, but argues that these meaning-making practices can support their validation and recognition.}, language = {en} } @article{LieseReiners2019, author = {Liese, Andrea Margit and Reiners, Nina}, title = {The Eye of the Beholder?}, series = {The International Rule of Law: Rise or Decline?}, journal = {The International Rule of Law: Rise or Decline?}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {0191879398}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780198843603.003.0021}, pages = {335 -- 343}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @techreport{BarkholdtReiners2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Barkholdt, Janina and Reiners, Nina}, title = {Pronouncements of Expert Treaty Bodies}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {40}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47588}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-475886}, pages = {26}, year = {2019}, abstract = {While some pronouncements of expert treaty bodies have been considered 'key catalysts' for the development of international human rights law, others are only selectively referred to in legal practice. This article argues that the varying normative impact is due to the informal character of pronouncements. In the absence of treaty provisions specifying their legal effect, practitioners tend to rely on different factors and arguments when either drawing on or rejecting certain pronouncements. Scholars in turn face difficulties when trying to identify explanatory patterns within this diverging practice as the informal character confronts both international lawyers and international relations scholars with their respective methodological 'blind spots'. In light of these intradisciplinary challenges, this article explores the extent as to which an interdisciplinary approach helps to assess the reasons for the varying impact of pronouncements. After analysing the factors determining their legal significance on the basis of State practice and the academic debate, this article identifies the drafting process as a factor which promises to be particularly insightful when explored from an interdisciplinary perspective and sketches out a framework for future research.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Reiners2017, author = {Reiners, Nina}, title = {Transnational lawmaking coalitions for human rights}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {221, VI}, year = {2017}, language = {en} }