@phdthesis{Aral2024, author = {Aral, Tuğ{\c{c}}e}, title = {Socialization and development of racial knowledge among youth in inequitable societies}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-64855}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-648559}, school = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {175}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Background: Societies worldwide have become more diverse yet continue to be inequitable. Understanding how youth growing up in these societies are socialized and consequently develop racial knowledge has important implications not only for their well-being but also for building more just societies. Importantly, there is a lack of research on these topics in Germany and Europe in general. Aim and Method: The overarching aim of the dissertation is to investigate 1) where and how ethnic-racial socialization (ERS) happens in inequitable societies and 2) how it relates to youth's development of racial knowledge, which comprises racial beliefs (e.g., prejudice, attitudes), behaviors (e.g., actions preserving or disrupting inequities), and identities (e.g., inclusive, cultural). Guided by developmental, cultural, and ecological theories of socialization and development, I first explored how family, as a crucial socialization context, contributes to the preservation or disruption of racism and xenophobia in inequitable societies through its influence on children's racial beliefs and behaviors. I conducted a literature review and developed a conceptual model bridging research on ethnic-racial socialization and intergroup relations (Study 1). After documenting the lack of research on socialization and development of racial knowledge within and beyond family contexts outside of the U.S., I conducted a qualitative study to explore ERS in Germany through the lens of racially marginalized youth (Study 2). Then, I conducted two quantitative studies to explore the separate and interacting relations of multiple (i.e., family, school) socialization contexts for the development of racial beliefs and behaviors (Study 3), and identities (Studies 3, 4) in Germany. Participants of Study 2 were 26 young adults (aged between 19 and 32) of Turkish, Kurdish, East, and Southeast Asian heritage living across different cities in Germany. Study 3 was conducted with 503 eighth graders of immigrant and non-immigrant descent (Mage = 13.67) in Berlin, Study 4 included 311 early to mid-adolescents of immigrant descent (Mage= 13.85) in North Rhine-Westphalia with diverse cultural backgrounds. Results and Conclusion: The findings revealed that privileged or marginalized positions of families in relation to their ethnic-racial and religious background in society entail differential experiences and thus are an important determining factor for the content/process of socialization and development of youth's racial knowledge. Until recently, ERS research mostly focused on investigating how racially marginalized families have been the sources of support for their children in resisting racism and how racially privileged families contribute to transmission of information upholding racism (Study 1). ERS for racially marginalized youth in Germany centered heritage culture, discrimination, and resistance strategies to racism, yet resistance strategies transmitted to youth mostly help to survive racism (e.g., working hard) by upholding it instead of liberating themselves from racism by disrupting it (e.g., self-advocacy, Study 2). Furthermore, when families and schools foster heritage and intercultural learning, both contexts may separately promote stronger identification with heritage culture and German identities, and more prosocial intentions towards disadvantaged groups (i.e., refugees) among youth (Studies 3, 4). However, equal treatment in the school context led to mixed results: equal treatment was either unrelated to inclusive identity, or positively related to German and negatively related to heritage culture identities (Studies 3, 4). Additionally, youth receiving messages highlighting strained and preferential intergroup relations at home while attending schools promoting assimilation may develop a stronger heritage culture identity (Study 4). In conclusion, ERS happened across various social contexts (i.e., family, community centers, school, neighborhood, peer). ERS promoting heritage and intercultural learning, at least in one social context (family or school), might foster youth's racial knowledge manifesting in stronger belonging to multiple cultures and in prosocial intentions toward disadvantaged groups. However, there is a need for ERS targeting increasing awareness of discrimination across social contexts of youth and teaching youth resistance strategies for liberation from racism.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Tjaden2024, author = {Tjaden, Jasper}, title = {Social media data and migration research}, series = {How to do migration research : how to research guides}, booktitle = {How to do migration research : how to research guides}, editor = {Zapata-Barrero, Ricard and Vintila, Daniela}, publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing}, address = {Cheltenham, UK}, isbn = {9781035306855}, doi = {10.4337/9781035306855.00023}, pages = {116 -- 124}, year = {2024}, abstract = {In 2022, there were 4.62 billion social media users worldwide. Social media generates a wealth of data which migration scholars have recently started to explore in pursuit of a variety of methodological and thematic research questions. Scholars use social media data to estimate migration stocks, forecast migration flows, or recruit migrants for targeted online surveys. Social media has also been used to understand how migrants get information about their planned journeys and destination countries, how they organize and mobilize online, how migration issues are politicized online, and how migrants integrate culturally into destination countries by sharing common interests. While social media data drives innovative research, it also poses severe challenges regarding data privacy, data protection, and methodological questions relating to external validity. In this chapter, I briefly introduce various strands of migration research using social media data and discuss the advantages, disadvantages, and opportunities.}, language = {en} } @article{TjadenHeidland2024, author = {Tjaden, Jasper and Heidland, Tobias}, title = {Did Merkel's 2015 decision attract more migration to Germany?}, series = {European journal of political research}, volume = {0}, journal = {European journal of political research}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0304-4130}, doi = {10.1111/1475-6765.12669}, pages = {1 -- 17}, year = {2024}, abstract = {In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to allow over a million asylum seekers to cross the border into Germany. One key concern was that her decision would signal an open-door policy to aspiring migrants worldwide - thus further increasing migration to Germany and making the country permanently more attractive to irregular and humanitarian migrants. This 'pull-effect' hypothesis has been a mainstay of policy discussions ever since. With the continued global rise in forced displacement, not appearing welcoming to migrants has become a guiding principle for the asylum policy of many large receiving countries. In this article, we exploit the unique case study that Merkel's 2015 decision provides for answering the fundamental question of whether welcoming migration policies have sustained effects on migration towards destination countries. We analyze an extensive range of data on migration inflows, migration aspirations and online search interest between 2000 and 2020. The results reject the 'pull effect' hypothesis while reaffirming states' capacity to adapt to changing contexts and regulate migration.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannFranzkePetersetal.2024, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Franzke, Jochen and Peters, Niklas and Dumas, Beno{\^i}t Paul}, title = {Institutional designs and dynamics of crisis governance at the local level}, series = {Policy design and practice}, journal = {Policy design and practice}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London}, issn = {2574-1292}, doi = {10.1080/25741292.2024.2344784}, pages = {1 -- 21}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This article analyses the institutional design variants of local crisis governance responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and their entanglement with other locally impactful crises from a cross-country comparative perspective (France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the UK/England). The pandemic offers an excellent empirical lens for scrutinizing the phenomenon of polycrises governance because it occurred while European countries were struggling with the impacts of several prior, ongoing, or newly arrived crises. Our major focus is on institutional design variants of crisis governance (dependent variable) and the influence of different administrative cultures on it (independent variable). Furthermore, we analyze the entanglement and interaction of institutional responses to other (previous or parallel) crises (polycrisis dynamics). Our findings reveal a huge variance of institutional designs, largely evoked by country-specific administrative cultures and profiles. The degree of de-/centralization and the intensity of coordination or decoupling across levels of government differs significantly by country. Simultaneously, all countries were affected by interrelated and entangled crises, resulting in various patterns of polycrisis dynamics. While policy failures and "fatal remedies" from previous crises have partially impaired the resilience and crisis preparedness of local governments, we have also found some learning effects from previous crises.}, language = {en} } @article{GutzeitTiberius2023, author = {Gutzeit, Lilly Joan and Tiberius, Victor}, title = {Business and management research on the motion picture industry}, series = {Journalism and media}, volume = {4}, journal = {Journalism and media}, number = {4}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {2673-5172}, doi = {10.3390/journalmedia4040076}, pages = {1198 -- 1210}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The motion picture industry is subject to extensive business and management research conducted on a wide range of topics. Due to high research productivity, it is challenging to keep track of the abundance of publications. Against this background, we employ a bibliographic coupling analysis to gain a comprehensive understanding of current research topics. The following themes were defined: Key factors for success, word of mouth and social media, organizational and pedagogical dimensions, advertising—product placement and online marketing, tourism, the influence of data, the influence of culture, revenue maximization and purchase decisions, and the perception and identification of audiences. Based on the cluster analysis, we suggest the following future research opportunities: Exploring technological innovations, especially the influence of social media and streaming platforms in the film industry; the in-depth analysis of the use of artificial intelligence in film production, both in terms of its creative potential and ethical and legal challenges; the exploration of the representation of wokeness and minorities in films and their cultural and economic significance; and, finally, a detailed examination of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises on the film industry, especially in terms of changed consumption habits and structural adjustments.}, language = {en} } @incollection{GeissLi2024, author = {Geiß, Robin and Li, Yao}, title = {Testimonium 1951 Convention/Article XI 1967 Protocol}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1819 -- 1824}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter covers the function of Testimonium to the 1951 Convention and Article XI of the 1967 Protocol. It looks into the relevance of the 1951 Convetion's testimonium. The testimonium primarily focuses on the Convetion's authentic languages, regulation of deposition, and certified true copies being delivered to all members of the UN and non-member States. On the other hand, Article XI contains the standard procedures for regulating the deposition of a copy of the 1967 Protocol in the Secretariat of the United Nations and foreseeing the transmission of certified copies thereof by the Secretary general. The chapter mentions how both elements are not commonly explicitly indicated in modern treaties.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BrodeurMikolaCooketal.2024, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Brodeur, Abel and Mikola, Derek and Cook, Nikolai and Brailey, Thomas and Briggs, Ryan and Gendre, Alexandra de and Dupraz, Yannick and Fiala, Lenka and Gabani, Jacopo and Gauriot, Romain and Haddad, Joanne and Lima, Goncalo and Ankel-Peters, J{\"o}rg and Dreber, Anna and Campbell, Douglas and Kattan, Lamis and Fages, Diego Marino and Mierisch, Fabian and Sun, Pu and Wright, Taylor and Connolly, Marie and Hoces de la Guardia, Fernando and Johannesson, Magnus and Miguel, Edward and Vilhuber, Lars and Abarca, Alejandro and Acharya, Mahesh and Adjisse, Sossou Simplice and Akhtar, Ahwaz and Lizardi, Eduardo Alberto Ramirez and Albrecht, Sabina and Andersen, Synve Nygaard and Andlib, Zubaria and Arrora, Falak and Ash, Thomas and Bacher, Etienne and Bachler, Sebastian and Bacon, F{\´e}lix and Bagues, Manuel and Balogh, Timea and Batmanov, Alisher and Barschkett, Mara and Basdil, B. Kaan and Dower, Jaromneda and Castek, Ondrej and Caviglia-Harris, Jill and Strand, Gabriella Chauca and Chen, Shi and Chzhen, Asya and Chung, Jong and Collins, Jason and Coppock, Alexander and Cordeau, Hugo and Couillard, Ben and Crechet, Jonathan and Crippa, Lorenzo and Cui, Jeanne and Czymara, Christian and Daarstad, Haley and Dao, Danh Chi and Dao, Dong and Schmandt, Marco David and Linde, Astrid de and Melo, Lucas De and Deer, Lachlan and Vera, Micole De and Dimitrova, Velichka and Dollbaum, Jan Fabian and Dollbaum, Jan Matti and Donnelly, Michael and Huynh, Luu Duc Toan and Dumbalska, Tsvetomira and Duncan, Jamie and Duong, Kiet Tuan and Duprey, Thibaut and Dworschak, Christoph and Ellingsrud, Sigmund and Elminejad, Ali and Eissa, Yasmine and Erhart, Andrea and Etingin-Frati, Giulian and Fatemi-Pour, Elaheh and Federice, Alexa and Feld, Jan and Fenig, Guidon and Firouzjaeiangalougah, Mojtaba and Fleisje, Erlend and Fortier-Chouinard, Alexandre and Engel, Julia Francesca and Fries, Tilman and Fortier, Reid and Fr{\´e}chet, Nadjim and Galipeau, Thomas and Gallegos, Sebasti{\´a}n and Gangji, Areez and Gao, Xiaoying and Garnache, Clo{\´e} and G{\´a}sp{\´a}r, Attila and Gavrilova, Evelina and Ghosh, Arijit and Gibney, Garreth and Gibson, Grant and Godager, Geir and Goff, Leonard and Gong, Da and Gonz{\´a}lez, Javier and Gretton, Jeremy and Griffa, Cristina and Grigoryeva, Idaliya and Grtting, Maja and Guntermann, Eric and Guo, Jiaqi and Gugushvili, Alexi and Habibnia, Hooman and H{\"a}ffner, Sonja and Hall, Jonathan D. and Hammar, Olle and Kordt, Amund Hanson and Hashimoto, Barry and Hartley, Jonathan S. and Hausladen, Carina I. and Havr{\´a}nek, Tom{\´a}š and Hazen, Jacob and He, Harry and Hepplewhite, Matthew and Herrera-Rodriguez, Mario and Heuer, Felix and Heyes, Anthony and Ho, Anson T. Y. and Holmes, Jonathan and Holzknecht, Armando and Hsu, Yu-Hsiang Dexter and Hu, Shiang-Hung and Huang, Yu-Shiuan and Huebener, Mathias and Huber, Christoph and Huynh, Kim P. and Irsova, Zuzana and Isler, Ozan and Jakobsson, Niklas and Frith, Michael James and Jananji, Rapha{\"e}l and Jayalath, Tharaka A. and Jetter, Michael and John, Jenny and Forshaw, Rachel Joy and Juan, Felipe and Kadriu, Valon and Karim, Sunny and Kelly, Edmund and Dang, Duy Khanh Hoang and Khushboo, Tazia and Kim, Jin and Kjellsson, Gustav and Kjelsrud, Anders and Kotsadam, Andreas and Korpershoek, Jori and Krashinsky, Lewis and Kundu, Suranjana and Kustov, Alexander and Lalayev, Nurlan and Langlois, Audr{\´e}e and Laufer, Jill and Lee-Whiting, Blake and Leibing, Andreas and Lenz, Gabriel and Levin, Joel and Li, Peng and Li, Tongzhe and Lin, Yuchen and Listo, Ariel and Liu, Dan and Lu, Xuewen and Lukmanova, Elvina and Luscombe, Alex and Lusher, Lester R. and Lyu, Ke and Ma, Hai and M{\"a}der, Nicolas and Makate, Clifton and Malmberg, Alice and Maitra, Adit and Mandas, Marco and Marcus, Jan and Margaryan, Shushanik and M{\´a}rk, Lili and Martignano, Andres and Marsh, Abigail and Masetto, Isabella and McCanny, Anthony and McManus, Emma and McWay, Ryan and Metson, Lennard and Kinge, Jonas Minet and Mishra, Sumit and Mohnen, Myra and M{\"o}ller, Jakob and Montambeault, Rosalie and Montpetit, S{\´e}bastien and Morin, Louis-Philippe and Morris, Todd and Moser, Scott and Motoki, Fabio and Muehlenbachs, Lucija and Musulan, Andreea and Musumeci, Marco and Nabin, Munirul and Nchare, Karim and Neubauer, Florian and Nguyen, Quan M. P. and Nguyen, Tuan and Nguyen-Tien, Viet and Niazi, Ali and Nikolaishvili, Giorgi and Nordstrom, Ardyn and N{\"u}, Patrick and Odermatt, Angela and Olson, Matt and ien, Henning and {\"O}lkers, Tim and Vert, Miquel Oliver i. and Oral, Emre and Oswald, Christian and Ousman, Ali and {\"O}zak, {\"O}mer and Pandey, Shubham and Pavlov, Alexandre and Pelli, Martino and Penheiro, Romeo and Park, RyuGyung and Martel, Eva P{\´e}rez and Petrovičov{\´a}, Tereza and Phan, Linh and Prettyman, Alexa and Proch{\´a}zka, Jakub and Putri, Aqila and Quandt, Julian and Qiu, Kangyu and Nguyen, Loan Quynh Thi and Rahman, Andaleeb and Rea, Carson H. and Reiremo, Adam and Ren{\´e}e, La{\"e}titia and Richardson, Joseph and Rivers, Nicholas and Rodrigues, Bruno and Roelofs, William and Roemer, Tobias and Rogeberg, Ole and Rose, Julian and Roskos-Ewoldsen, Andrew and Rosmer, Paul and Sabada, Barbara and Saberian, Soodeh and Salamanca, Nicolas and Sator, Georg and Sawyer, Antoine and Scates, Daniel and Schl{\"u}ter, Elmar and Sells, Cameron and Sen, Sharmi and Sethi, Ritika and Shcherbiak, Anna and Sogaolu, Moyosore and Soosalu, Matt and Srensen, Erik and Sovani, Manali and Spencer, Noah and Staubli, Stefan and Stans, Renske and Stewart, Anya and Stips, Felix and Stockley, Kieran and Strobel, Stephenson and Struby, Ethan and Tang, John and Tanrisever, Idil and Yang, Thomas Tao and Tastan, Ipek and Tatić, Dejan and Tatlow, Benjamin and Seuyong, F{\´e}raud Tchuisseu and Th{\´e}riault, R{\´e}mi and Thivierge, Vincent and Tian, Wenjie and Toma, Filip-Mihai and Totarelli, Maddalena and Tran, Van-Anh and Truong, Hung and Tsoy, Nikita and Tuzcuoglu, Kerem and Ubfal, Diego and Villalobos, Laura and Walterskirchen, Julian and Wang, Joseph Taoyi and Wattal, Vasudha and Webb, Matthew D. and Weber, Bryan and Weisser, Reinhard and Weng, Wei-Chien and Westheide, Christian and White, Kimberly and Winter, Jacob and Wochner, Timo and Woerman, Matt and Wong, Jared and Woodard, Ritchie and Wroński, Marcin and Yazbeck, Myra and Yang, Gustav Chung and Yap, Luther and Yassin, Kareman and Ye, Hao and Yoon, Jin Young and Yurris, Chris and Zahra, Tahreen and Zaneva, Mirela and Zayat, Aline and Zhang, Jonathan and Zhao, Ziwei and Yaolang, Zhong}, title = {Mass reproducibility and replicability}, series = {I4R discussion paper series}, journal = {I4R discussion paper series}, number = {107}, publisher = {Institute for Replication}, address = {Essen}, issn = {2752-1931}, pages = {250}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85\%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25\% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70\%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52\% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77\% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.}, language = {en} } @incollection{GeissLi2024, author = {Geiß, Robin and Li, Yao}, title = {Article 46 1951 Convention/Article X 1967 Protocol}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1813 -- 1818}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter focuses on Article 46 of the 1951 Convention and Article X of the 1967 Protocol. It explains the depository of a treaty playing an essential procedural role in ensuring the smooth operation of a multilateral treaty. Article 46 enumerates the Secretary-General's function as a depositary performed by the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs in the United Nations Secretariat. Similarly, Article X confirms and details the Secretary-General's designation and role as depositary of the 1967 Protocol. The chapter mentions that the enumeration of Article X's depositary notification is exemplary instead of conclusive. It examines the depositoary notifications of declarations, signatures, and researvations under Article 46 and Article X.}, language = {en} } @incollection{GeissLi2024, author = {Geiß, Robin and Li, Yao}, title = {Article 44 1951 Convention/Article IX 1967 Protocol}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1791 -- 1796}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter examines the extent of the 1951 Convention's Article 44 and the 1967 Protocol's Article IX. It starts with identifying the standard denunciation clause in Article 44 and Article IX. Multilateral treaties of unlimited duration allow States parties an unconditional right to withdraw. A denunciation releases the denouncing party from any obligation further to perform the treaty in relation to the other parties of the 1967 Protocol. The chapter clarifies that denunciation or withdrawal expresses the same legal concept since it is a procedure initiated unilaterally by a State that wants to terminate its legal engagements under a treaty.}, language = {en} } @incollection{GeissLi2024, author = {Geiß, Robin and Li, Yao}, title = {Article 43 1951 Convention/Article VIII 1967 Protocol}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1787 -- 1790}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter tackles the analysis and function of Article 43 of the 1951 Convention and Article VIII of the 1967 Protocol. It explains that a multilateral treaty can be enforced when met with necessary conditions, such as the Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The provision also regulates the 1951 Convention's entry into force of States' ratification or accession. The chapter notes that the 1967 Protocol entered into force after Sweden deposited its instrument of accession. It elaborates on the specific details needed for the ratification or accession prior to the entry into force.}, language = {en} } @techreport{SiedlerAngerChristophetal.2024, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Siedler, Thomas and Anger, Silke and Christoph, Bernhard and Galkiewicz, Agata Danuta and Margaryan, Shushanik and Peter, Frauke and Sandner, Malte}, title = {War, international spillovers, and adolescents}, series = {Discussion paper series}, volume = {No. 16921}, journal = {Discussion paper series}, publisher = {IZA}, address = {Bonn}, issn = {2365-9793}, pages = {43}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Using novel longitudinal data, this paper studies the short- and medium-term effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022 on social trust of adolescents in Germany. Comparing adolescents who responded to our survey shortly before the start of the war with those who responded shortly after the conflict began and applying difference-in-differences (DiD) models over time, we find a significant decline in the outcome after the war started. These findings provide new evidence on how armed conflicts influence social trust and well-being among young people in a country not directly involved in the war.}, language = {en} } @incollection{GeissLi2024, author = {Geiß, Robin and Li, Yao}, title = {Article 39 1951 Convention/Article V 1967 Protocol}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1693 -- 1706}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter looks into the 1951 Convention's Article 39 and the 1967 Protocol's Article V. In 2000, the Secretary-General identified the 1951 Convention as belonging to a core group of 25 multilateral treaties representative of the key objectives of the UN and the spirit of its Charter. Additionally, the rules found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) apply to the 1951 Convention as a matter of customary international law. On the other hand, the 1967 Protocol does not amend the 1951 Convention but binds its parties to observe the substantive provisions. The chapter cites that the 1967 Protocol constitutes an independent and complete international instrument that is open not only to the States parties to the 1951 Convention.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MarxLi2024, author = {Marx, Reinhard and Li, Yao}, title = {Article 34 1951 Convention}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1585 -- 1604}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter tackles the features and historical development of the 1951 Convention's Article 34. It explains the function of the provision, which primarily focuses on requesting Contracting States to facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. Moreover, the provision forms the legal bases for local integration and naturalization as some of the traditional durable solutions to refugeehood. The soft obligation imposed by Article 34 primarily focuses on the long-term solution by naturalization. The chapter then elaborates on the balance between local integration, naturalization, and voluntary return after it was disrupted due to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989.}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannStern2024, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Stern, Rebecca Thorburn}, title = {Article 22 1951 Convention}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {1201 -- 1226}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter covers the 1951 Convention's Article 22. It explains the provision's aim to grant refugees access to the contracting States' national educational systems. Moreover, Article 22 encompasses learning at all different levels of education in schools, universities, and other educational institutions. However, the provision does not address any issues related to the upbringing of children by their parents. The chapter mentions the relevancy of Article 22 when it comes to durable solutions for refugees in an effort to enable them to integrate into the host country's society. It also discusses the drafting history, declarations, and reservations of Article 22 and the instruments used prior to the 1951 Convention.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Li2024, author = {Li, Yao}, title = {Article 1 E 1951 Convention}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {669 -- 678}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter elaborates on the function of Article 1 E of the 1951 Convention, which was originally aimed at German refugees. It refers to a special group of people who qualify for refugee status but enjoy the rights of national citizens despite their lack of formal citizenship. The article's object and purpose revolve around excluding persons from refugee protection who do not need any international protection since they have the status of national citizens. Additionally, access to refugee status is excluded ipso facto because the individual may resort to effective protection similar to that of citizenship upon being admitted to the country of sojourn. The chapter explains how Article 1 E is an integral part of the balanced system of international refugee protection prescribed by the Convention.}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannHerrmann2024, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Herrmann, Franziska M.}, title = {Article 1 A, para. 2 1951 Convention}, series = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, booktitle = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {359 -- 556}, year = {2024}, abstract = {This chapter focuses on the features of Article 1's paragraph 1 of the 1951 Convention. The article primarily determines the scope of application of the Convention's ratione personae while outlining the basis of the protection of refugees. Additionally, Article 1 addresses the concerns surrounding the inclusion, cessation, and exclusion of refugees. The chapter then tackles the historical development of the article by considering the instruments used prior to the 1951 Convention. It also cites that the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization appears to contain an ambiguity as to how the refugee notion was perceived, so refugees only became the IRO Constitution's concern when they have valid objections to returning to their home country.}, language = {en} } @misc{AmbosBockGeneussetal.2024, author = {Ambos, Kai and Bock, Stefanie and Geneuss, Julia and Jeßberger, Florian and Kreß, Claus and Oeter, Stefan and Paulus, Andreas and Talmon, Stefan and Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Without fear or favour}, series = {Verfassungsblog : on matters constitutional}, journal = {Verfassungsblog : on matters constitutional}, publisher = {Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2366-7044}, doi = {10.59704/eea458648230c9df}, pages = {5}, year = {2024}, language = {en} } @article{AktasStede2022, author = {Aktas, Berfin and Stede, Manfred}, title = {Anaphoric distance in oral and written language}, series = {Discours : revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique}, journal = {Discours : revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique}, number = {31}, publisher = {Universit{\´e} de Paris-Sorbonne, Maion Recherche}, address = {Paris}, issn = {1963-1723}, doi = {10.4000/discours.12383}, pages = {37}, year = {2022}, abstract = {We investigate the variation in oral and written language in terms of anaphoric distance (i.e., the textual distance between anaphors and their antecedents), expanding corpus-based research with experimental evidence. Contrastive corpus studies demonstrate that oral genres include longer average anaphoric distance than written genres, if the distance is measured in terms of clauses (Fox, 1987; Aktas \& Stede, 2020). We designed an experiment in order to examine the contrasts in oral and written mediums, using the same genre. We aim to gain more insight about the impact of the medium, in a situation where both mediums convey a similar level of spontaneity, informality and interactivity. We designed a story continuation study, where the participants are recruited via crowdsourcing. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind, where anaphoric distance is manipulated systematically in a language production experiment in order to examine medium distinctions. We observed that participants use more pronouns in oral medium than in written medium if the anaphoric distance is long. This result is in line with the implications of the earlier corpus-based research. In addition, our results indicate that anaphoric distance has a larger effect in referential choice for the written medium.}, language = {en} } @book{OPUS4-64979, title = {The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol}, series = {Oxford commentaries on international law series}, journal = {Oxford commentaries on international law series}, editor = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Terje, Einarsen}, edition = {Second edition}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {978-0-19-285511-4}, doi = {10.1093/law/9780192855114.001.0001}, pages = {cliii, 1866}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951 in Geneva provides the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees yet attempted. Consolidating previous international instruments relating to refugees, the 1951 Convention with its 1967 Protocol marks a cornerstone in the development of international refugee law. At present, there are 144 States Parties to one or both of these instruments, expressing a worldwide consensus on the definition of the term refugee and the fundamental rights to be granted to refugees. These facts demonstrate and underline the extraordinary significance of these instruments as the indispensable legal basis of international refugee law. This Commentary provides for a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on an article-by-article basis, exposing the interrelationship between the different articles and discussing the latest developments in international refugee law. In addition, several thematic contributions analyse questions of international refugee law which are of general significance, such as regional developments and the relationship between refugee law and the law of the sea.}, language = {en} } @article{Scianna2022, author = {Scianna, Bastian Matteo}, title = {Directing the war from triumph to disaster}, series = {The Routledge History of the Second World War}, journal = {The Routledge History of the Second World War}, editor = {Bartrop, Paul R.}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon}, isbn = {9780429455353}, doi = {10.4324/9780429455353-16}, pages = {181 -- 194}, year = {2022}, abstract = {After the Second World War, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were singled out as evil geniuses who misled the masses and plunged them into an "unwanted war." In relation to their armed forces, this narrative argued that the generals under their command had been demoted to powerless tools in the hands of the dictators, having to follow orders and with no sway over decision-making. It was further asserted that Germany and Italy had not been able to secure a victory due to the dictators' meddling. Yet, as this chapter shows, there are important differences between the German and Italian cases. The chapter compares both the command structures in which the dictators operated as well as their grand strategies and how they cooperated during the war. Their personal relationship will be also analyzed, as it is impossible to look at the Axis without understanding the complex personal relationship at the very top. The strategies of both Hitler and Mussolini will be looked at and how each leader behaved in terms of working with their closest ally, together with some examples of cooperation on the lower military rungs.}, language = {en} }