@techreport{DebreSommerer2023,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Debre, Maria Josepha and Sommerer, Thomas},
  title     = {Weathering the storm?},
  series = {IGCC series on authoritarian regimes and international organizations},
  journal   = {IGCC series on authoritarian regimes and international organizations},
  publisher = {UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation},
  address   = {La Jolla, CA},
  pages     = {38},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Democratization scholars are currently debating if we are indeed witnessing a third wave of autocratization. While this has led to an extensive debate about the future of the liberal international order, we still know relatively little about the consequences of autocratization for international organizations (IOs). In this article, we explore to what extent autocratization has led to changes in the composition of IO membership. We propose three different ways of conceptualizing autocratization of IO membership. We argue that we should move away from a dichotomous understanding of regime type and regime change, but rather focus on composition of subregime types to understand current developments. We build on updated membership data for 73 IOs through 2020 to map membership configurations based on the V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index. Contrary to current debates on the crisis of the liberal order, we find that many IOs are not (yet) affected by broad autocratization of their membership that would endanger democratic majorities or overall democratic densities. However, we also observe the disappearance of formerly homogenous democratic clubs due to democratic backsliding in a number of European and Latin American IO member states, as well as a return of autocratic clubs in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa. These findings have important implications for the broader research agenda on international democracy promotion and human right protection as well as the study of legitimacy and the effectiveness of international organizations.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{SchwabKrauseMassoud2023,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Schwab, Regine and Krause, Werner and Massoud, Samer},
  title     = {The bombing of hospitals and local violence dynamics in civil wars},
  series = {HiCN Working paper},
  volume    = {403},
  journal   = {HiCN Working paper},
  publisher = {Households in Conflict Network},
  address   = {Berlin},
  pages     = {89},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The impact of civilian harm on strategic outcomes in war has been the subject of persistent debate. However, the literature has primarily focused on civilian casualties, thereby overlooking the targeting of civilian infrastructure, which is a recurrent phenomenon during war. This study fills this gap by examining the targeting of healthcare, one of the most indispensable infrastructures during war and peace time. We contend that attacks on medical facilities are distinct from direct violence against civilians. Because they are typically unrelated to military dynamics, the targeting of hospitals is a highly visible form and powerful signal of civilian victimization. To assess its effects, we analyze newly collected data on such attacks by pro-government forces and event data on combat activities in Northwest Syria (2017-2020). Applying a new approach for panel data analysis that combines matching methods with a difference-in-differences estimation, we examine the causal effect of counterinsurgent bombings on subsequent violent events. Distinguishing between regime-initiated and insurgent-initiated combat activities and their associated fatalities, we find that the targeting of hospitals increases insurgent violence. We supplement the quantitative analysis with unique qualitative evidence derived from interviews, which demonstrates that hospital bombings induce rebels to resist more fiercely through two mechanisms: intrinsic motivations and civilian pressure. The results have important implications for the effects of state-led violence and the strength of legal norms that protect noncombatants.},
  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}
}
@techreport{Doerfler2021,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {D{\"o}rfler, Thomas},
  title     = {Interface challenges of UN sanctions with forums of export control},
  series = {International sanctions: improving implementation through better interface management},
  journal   = {International sanctions: improving implementation through better interface management},
  editor    = {Lohmann, Sascha and Vorrath, Judith},
  publisher = {Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik},
  address   = {Berlin},
  pages     = {23 -- 31},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{KriegerLiese2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea Margit},
  title     = {A Metamorphosis of International Law?},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {27},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42608},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426088},
  pages     = {26},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The paper aims to lay out a framework for evaluating value shifts in the international legal order for the purposes of a forthcoming book. In view of current contestations it asks whether we are observing yet another period of norm change (Wandel) or even a more fundamental transformation of international law - a metamorphosis (Verwandlung). For this purpose it suggests to look into the mechanisms of how norms change from the perspective of legal and political science and also to approximate a reference point where change turns into metamorphosis. It submits that such a point may be reached where specific legally protected values are indeed changing (change of legal values) or where the very idea of protecting certain values through law is renounced (delegalizing of values). The paper discusses the benefits of such an interdisciplinary exchange and tries to identify differences and commonalities among both disciplinary perspectives.},
  language  = {en}
}