@article{Crome2021, author = {Crome, Erhard}, title = {Hegemonialkampf im Weltsystem}, series = {WeltTrends : das außenpolitische Journal}, volume = {29}, journal = {WeltTrends : das außenpolitische Journal}, number = {179}, publisher = {WeltTrends}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-947802-66-1}, issn = {0944-8101}, pages = {41 -- 45}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{LieseHeroldFeiletal.2021, author = {Liese, Andrea and Herold, Jana and Feil, Hauke and Busch, Per-Olof}, title = {The heart of bureaucratic power}, series = {Review of international studies : RIS}, volume = {47}, journal = {Review of international studies : RIS}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {0260-2105}, doi = {10.1017/S026021052100005X}, pages = {353 -- 376}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Expert authority is regarded as the heart of international bureaucracies' power. To measure whether international bureaucracies' expert authority is indeed recognised and deferred to, we draw on novel data from a survey of a key audience: officials in the policy units of national ministries in 121 countries. Respondents were asked to what extent they recognised the expert authority of nine international bureaucracies in various thematic areas of agricultural and financial policy. The results show wide variance. To explain this variation, we test well-established assumptions on the sources of de facto expert authority. Specifically, we look at ministry officials' perceptions of these sources and, thus, focus on a less-studied aspect of the authority relationship. We examine the role of international bureaucracies' perceived impartiality, objectivity, global impact, and the role of knowledge asymmetries. Contrary to common assumptions, we find that de facto expert authority does not rest on impartiality perceptions, and that perceived objectivity plays the smallest role of all factors considered. We find some indications that knowledge asymmetries are associated with more expert authority. Still, and robust to various alternative specifications, the perception that international bureaucracies are effectively addressing global challenges is the most important factor.}, language = {en} } @article{Zimmering2021, author = {Zimmering, Raina}, title = {Das Verweben gemeinsamer Widerst{\"a}nde}, series = {Welttrends : das außenpolitische Journal}, volume = {29}, journal = {Welttrends : das außenpolitische Journal}, number = {117}, publisher = {WeltTrends}, address = {Potsdam}, isbn = {978-3-947802-64-7}, issn = {0944-8101}, pages = {9 -- 12}, year = {2021}, language = {de} } @article{Geppert2021, author = {Geppert, Dominik Nicolas}, title = {Emotions and gender in Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl's Cold War}, series = {Diplomacy and statecraft}, volume = {32}, journal = {Diplomacy and statecraft}, number = {4}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Philadelphia}, issn = {0959-2296}, doi = {10.1080/09592296.2021.1996719}, pages = {766 -- 788}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Although German Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were on the same side in the Cold War, as well as in the same family of moderate centre-right parties, despite being roughly the same age and sharing a fundamental market-economic and Atlanticist orientation, they were not in harmony emotionally. This analysis demonstrates how different genders, incompatible conceptions of nation, history, and regional origins, as well as experiences of mutual frustration eclipsed their ideological commonalities and counteracted against the 'emotional regimes' of 'the West' in the Cold War. It breaks new ground in several respects. First, it does not examine strong feelings that blotted out all others but rather a range of more ambivalent and nuanced emotions. Second, it links the themes of gender and feeling by enquiring about the male or female manifestations and attributions of certain emotions. Third, it focuses on not only men and women at the top but considers their entourages as either amplifiers or 'shock absorbers' of the leaders' feelings. Finally, it explores the scope and limits of the notion that the Cold War was an 'emotional regime'.}, language = {en} } @article{DebreDijkstra2021, author = {Debre, Maria Josepha and Dijkstra, Hylke}, title = {COVID-19 and policy responses by international organizations}, series = {Global policy : gp / Durham University ; Hertie School of Governance ; LSE, Public Policy Group}, volume = {12}, journal = {Global policy : gp / Durham University ; Hertie School of Governance ; LSE, Public Policy Group}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Oxford [u.a.]}, issn = {1758-5880}, doi = {10.1111/1758-5899.12975}, pages = {443 -- 454}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The liberal international order is being challenged and international organizations (IOs) are a main target of contestation. COVID-19 seems to exacerbate the situation with many states pursuing domestic strategies at the expense of multilateral cooperation. At the same time, IOs have traditionally benefited from cross-border crises. This article analyzes the policy responses of IOs to the exogenous COVID-19 shock by asking why some IOs use this crisis as an opportunity to expand their scope and policy instruments? It provides a cross-sectional analysis using original data on the responses of 75 IOs to COVID-19 during the first wave between March and June 2020. It finds that the bureaucratic capacity of IOs is significant when it comes to using the crisis as an opportunity. It also finds some evidence that the number of COVID-19 cases among the member states affects policy responses and that general purpose IOs have benefited more.}, language = {en} } @article{HeinzelLiese2021, author = {Heinzel, Mirko Noa and Liese, Andrea}, title = {Expert authority and support for COVID-19 measures in Germany and the UK}, series = {West European politics}, journal = {West European politics}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0140-2382}, doi = {10.1080/01402382.2021.1873630}, pages = {1258 -- 1282}, year = {2021}, abstract = {During COVID-19, various public institutions tried to shape citizens' behaviour to slow the spread of the pandemic. How did their authority affect citizens' support of public measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19? The article makes two contributions. First, it presents a novel conceptualisation of authority as a source heuristic. Second, it analyses the authority of four types of public institutions (health ministries, universities, public health agencies, the WHO) in two countries (Germany and the UK), drawing on novel data from a survey experiment conducted in May 2020. On average, institutional endorsements seem to have mattered little. However, there is an observable polarisation effect where citizens who ascribe much expertise to public institutions support COVID-19 measures more than the control group. Furthermore, those who ascribe little expertise support them less than the control group. Finally, neither perception of biases nor exposure to institutions in public debates seems consistently to affect their authority.}, language = {en} } @article{LeibRuppel2021, author = {Leib, Julia and Ruppel, Samantha}, title = {The dance of peace and justice}, series = {International peacekeeping}, journal = {International peacekeeping}, number = {5}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {London}, issn = {1353-3312}, doi = {10.1080/13533312.2021.1927726}, pages = {783 -- 812}, year = {2021}, abstract = {This article investigates local perceptions of international peacebuilding in Sierra Leone and Liberia and explains the need for an inclusive framework addressing peace and justice at the same time. These neighbouring countries in West Africa not only share the burden of an intertwined conflict history but have also been described as prototypes for successful peacebuilding. However, both cases show striking differences with regard to the relative importance given to security and justice during the peace process and within the selected peacebuilding approaches. In Liberia, the peacebuilding framework was clearly sequenced, favouring security over justice. In Sierra Leone, it included a comprehensive TJ component, which was implemented alongside security-centred initiatives. In order to compare these two cases and to elaborate on the challenges of establishing both peace and justice in post-conflict settings with a more people-centred focus, we conducted expert interviews with (inter)national peacebuilding actors and opinion surveys, asking how the civilian populations themselves perceive the peace process and the effectiveness of international peacebuilding. The findings provide insights into local experiences with the inclusive peacebuilding framework implemented in Sierra Leone and the drawbacks of delaying justice and accountability in Liberia.}, language = {en} } @article{HeroldLieseBuschetal.2021, author = {Herold, Jana and Liese, Andrea and Busch, Per-Olof and Feil, Hauke}, title = {Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies}, series = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, volume = {65}, journal = {International studies quarterly : the journal of the International Studies Association}, number = {3}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0020-8833}, doi = {10.1093/isq/sqab044}, pages = {669 -- 682}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Scholars of international relations and public administration widely assume that international bureaucracies, in their role as policy advisors, directly influence countries' domestic policies. Yet, this is not true across the board. Why do some countries closely consider the advice of international bureaucracies while others do not? This article argues that international bureaucracies' standing as sources of expertise is crucial. We tested this argument using data from a unique survey that measured prevalent practices of advice utilization in thematically specialized policy units of national ministries in a representative sample of more than a hundred countries. Our findings show that ministries' perceptions of international bureaucracies' expertise, that is, specialized and reliable knowledge, are the key factor. International bureaucracies influence national ministries directly and without the support of other actors that may also have an interest in the international bureaucracies' policy advice. Our analysis also demonstrates that the effects of alternative means of influence, such as third-party pressure and coercion, are themselves partly dependent on international bureaucracies' reputation as experts. The findings presented in this article reinforce the emphasis on expertise as a source of international bureaucracies' influence, and provide a crucial test of its importance.}, language = {en} } @article{PetersJanz2021, author = {Peters, Wilfried and Janz, Norbert}, title = {Digitales Versammlungsrecht?}, series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r das gesamte Sicherheitsrecht}, volume = {4}, journal = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r das gesamte Sicherheitsrecht}, number = {4}, publisher = {C.H. Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, issn = {2567-3823}, pages = {161 -- 164}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Das Grundrecht der Versammlungsfreiheit ist bekanntermaßen entwicklungsoffen. Gesch{\"u}tzt werden also nicht nur historisch gewachsene „klassische" Versammlungstypen. Immer wieder zeigen sich neuartige Erscheinungsformen, die es in den Schutzbereich des Art. GG Artikel 8 GG einzuordnen gilt. Aus j{\"u}ngerer Zeit sind etwa Flashmobs oder Demonstrationen auf Schienen zur Fussnote 1 und mit Wohnmobilen zur Fussnote 2 zu nennen. Diskutiert werden auch Online-Versammlungen, bei denen die Teilnehmenden vollst{\"a}ndig auf ein k{\"o}rperliches Zusammentreffen verzichten und sich nur virtuell via Computer oder Smartphone zusammenschalten. Angesichts absoluter und relativer Versammlungsverbote in coronabedingten Lockdowns zur Fussnote 3 steht mehr denn je die verfassungsrechtliche Dimension dieserart nichtphysischer Zusammentreffen im Streit. Der Beitrag befasst sich daher mit der Frage, ob die Versammlungsfreiheit des Art. GG Artikel 8 GG im digitalen Zeitalter auch eine virtuelle Seite hat.}, language = {de} } @article{KuhlmannBogumil2021, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Bogumil, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Administrative Reforms in the Multilevel System}, series = {Public Administration in Germany}, journal = {Public Administration in Germany}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, address = {Cham}, isbn = {978-3-030-53696-1}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-53697-8_16}, pages = {271 -- 289}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The chapter analyses recent reforms in the multilevel system of the L{\"a}nder, specifically territorial, functional and structural reforms, which represent three of the most crucial and closely interconnected reform trajectories at the subnational level. It sheds light on the variety of reform approaches pursued in the different L{\"a}nder and also highlights some factors that account for these differences. The transfer of state functions to local governments is addressed as well as the restructuring of L{\"a}nder administrations (e.g. abolishment of the meso level of the L{\"a}nder administration and of single-purpose state agencies) and the rescaling of territorial boundaries at county and municipal levels, including a brief review of the recently failed (territorial) reforms in Eastern Germany.}, language = {en} }