Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (59) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (33)
- Doctoral Thesis (7)
- Review (7)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (4)
- Master's Thesis (3)
- Bachelor Thesis (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Keywords
- Zivilgesellschaft (2)
- governance (2)
- Akteurskonstellationen (1)
- Altruismus (1)
- Autoritarismus (1)
- Bureaucracy (1)
- Bürgerdienste (1)
- Bürgerschaftliches Engagement (1)
- Caillé (1)
- City (1)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (59) (remove)
In December 2013, the Court at first instance in Bonn ruled on whether Germany is required to pay compensation to victims of the International Security Assistance Force airstrike ordered by a German colonel in 2009 in Kunduz. Whereas the traditional approach rejects liability of the government for sovereign acts in armed conflicts, the Court held that the rules of German governmental liability (Amtshaftung) do-in principle-apply to illegal sovereign acts in contemporary armed conflicts. However, the Court did not admit the claim on its merits. This judgment can, nonetheless, be placed within the line of questions regarding international relations to be resolved by law and not politics. This article examines the history of German jurisprudence regarding victims' compensation for harm suffered resulting from violations of international humanitarian law. It summarizes and assesses the Kunduz judgment and explains why applying legal liability to the government for sovereign acts in bello is a logical step in the development of the rule of law.
International public administrations are increasingly perceived as autonomous actors prompting states to adopt policies without resorting to coercion or legal obligations. Starting from these observations, I determine abilities and characteristics of international public administrations that contribute to their autonomy as agents of non-hierarchical policy transfers. To this end, I draw on theoretical considerations and empirical results from policy transfer research. I find that the various abilities that contribute to this autonomy of international public administrations are essentially rooted in two structural characteristics: in as many states as possible their staff should (a) be present and (b) analyze the state, development and reform need of national policies on a regular basis.
Civil society is either considered as a motor of democratization or stabilizer of authoritarian rule. This dichotomy is partly due to the dominance of domains-based definitions of the concept that reduce civil society to a small range of formally organized, independent and democratically oriented NGOs. Additionally, research often treats civil society as a ‘black box’ without differentiating between potential variations in impact of different types of civil society actors on existing regime structures. In this thesis, I present an alternative conceptualization of civil society based on the interactions of societal actors to arrive at a more inclusive understanding of the term which is more suited for analysis in non-democratic settings. The operationalization of the action-based approach I develop allows for an empirical assessment of a large range of societal activities that can accordingly be categorized from little to very civil society-like depending on their specific modes of interactions within four dimensions. I employ this operationalization in a qualitative case study including different actors in the authoritarian monarchy of Jordan which suggests that Jordanian societal actors mostly exhibit tolerant and democratically oriented modes of interaction and do not reproduce authoritarian patterns. However, even democratically oriented actors do not necessarily take on an oppositional positions vis-à-vis the authoritarian regime. Thus, the Jordanian civil society might not feature a high potential to challenge existing power structures in the country.