Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (19) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Other (3)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (19)
Keywords
- Security Council (2)
- climate change (2)
- Active learning (1)
- Aktives Lernen (1)
- Beutelsbach consensus (1)
- Beutelsbacher Konsens (1)
- Constitutive Mechanism (1)
- Education (1)
- Electoral systems (1)
- Forms of government (1)
- Green infrastructure investment (1)
- International Practices (1)
- International relations (1)
- Internationale Beziehungen (1)
- Kontroversität (1)
- Kontroversitätsgebot (1)
- Lehre (1)
- Liberia (1)
- Negotiations (1)
- Planspiele (1)
- Politikunterricht (1)
- Precedent (1)
- Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (1)
- Quality management (1)
- Ratchet Effect (1)
- Responsibility to Protect (1)
- Schulbuchanalyse (1)
- Simulation game (1)
- South Africa (1)
- Types of democracy (1)
- Verhandlungen (1)
- decision-making (1)
- developing and emerging economies (1)
- doctrine (1)
- governance (1)
- green finance (1)
- higher education (1)
- institutional investors (1)
- international organisations (1)
- local climate policy making (1)
- multilevel governance (1)
- peace process (1)
- peacekeeping (1)
- policy signals (1)
- political education (1)
- precedent (1)
- principle of controversy (1)
- process tracing (1)
- qualitative content analysis (1)
- research (1)
- school book analysis (1)
- survey (1)
- teaching (1)
- terrorism (1)
- trade-offs (1)
- transitional justice (1)
- transnational city networks (1)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (19) (remove)
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.
Little is known about how far-reaching decisions in UN Security Council sanctions committees are made. Developing a novel committee governance concept and using examples drawn from sanctions imposed on Iraq, Al-Qaida, Congo, Sudan and Iran, this book shows that Council members tend to follow the will of the powerful, whereas sanctions committee members often decide according to the rules. This is surprising since both Council and committees are staffed by the same member states.
Offering a fascinating account of Security Council micro-politics and decision-making processes on sanctions, this rigorous comparative and theory-driven analysis treats the Council and its sanctions committees as distinguishable entities that may differ in decision practice despite having the same members. Drawing extensively on primary documents, diplomatic cables, well-informed press coverage, reports by close observers and extensive interviews with committee members, Council diplomats and sanctions experts, it contrasts with the conventional wisdom on decision-making within these bodies, which suggests that the powerful permanent members would not accept rule-based decisions against their interests.
This book will be of interest to policy practitioners and scholars working in the broad field of international organizations and international relations theory as well as those specializing in sanctions, international law, the Security Council and counter-terrorism.
Die Fragmentierung europäischer Parteiensysteme und damit verbundene Schwierigkeiten bei der Koalitionsbildung haben zu einer Neuauflage altbekannter Debatten über unterschiedliche Wahlsysteme geführt. Einige Autoren sehen dabei bestimmte Wahlsysteme als optimalen Kompromiss zwischen den Prinzipien der Mehrheits- und der Verhältniswahl an. Wir argumentieren, dass diese Optimalitätsargumente eine konzeptionelle Schlagseite zugunsten „majoritärer“ Demokratiekonzeptionen haben. Eine anspruchsvolle „proportionale“ Demokratiekonzeption umfasst die Ziele mechanischer Proportionalität, multidimensionaler Repräsentation und wechselnder Gesetzgebungsmehrheiten. Diese Ziele lassen sich allerdings im parlamentarischen Regierungssystem nicht mit den Zielen der Mehrheitswahl vereinbaren. Der Grund ist, dass die relevanten Hürden des Wahlsystems gleichzeitig für die parlamentarische Repräsentation und die Teilnahme am Misstrauensvotum gelten. Erstere ist entscheidend für die proportionale, letztere für die majoritäre Konzeption der Demokratie. Sind wir bereit diese beiden Hürden zu entkoppeln – und somit das Regierungssystem zu verändern – ergibt sich eine Vielfalt neuer Reformoptionen. Wir illustrieren diese Punkte mit Daten für 29 demokratische Systeme im Zeitraum von 1995 bis 2015.
We examine how and under what conditions informal institutional constraints, such as precedent and doctrine, are likely to affect collective choice within international organisations even in the absence of powerful bureaucratic agents. With a particular focus on the United Nations Security Council, we first develop a theoretical account of why such informal constraints might affect collective decisions even of powerful and strategically behaving actors. We show that precedents provide focal points that allow adopting collective decisions in coordination situations despite diverging preferences. Reliance on previous cases creates tacitly evolving doctrine that may develop incrementally. Council decision-making is also likely to be facilitated by an institutional logic of escalation driven by institutional constraints following from the typically staged response to crisis situations. We explore the usefulness of our theoretical argument with evidence from the Council doctrine on terrorism that has evolved since 1985. The key decisions studied include the 1992 sanctions resolution against Libya and the 2001 Council response to the 9/11 attacks. We conclude that, even within intergovernmentally structured international organisations, member states do not operate on a clean slate, but in a highly institutionalised environment that shapes their opportunities for action.
Based upon the current debate on international practices with its focus on taken-for-granted everyday practices, we examine how Security Council practices may affect member state action and collective decisions on intrastate conflicts. We outline a concept that integrates the structuring effect of practices and their emergence from interaction among reflective actors. It promises to overcome the unresolved tension between understanding practices as a social regularity and as a fluid entity. We analyse the constitutive mechanisms of two Council practices that affect collective decisions on intrastate conflicts and elucidate how even reflective Council members become enmeshed with the constraining implications of evolving practices and their normative implications. (1) Previous Council decisions create precedent pressure and give rise to a virtually uncontested permissive Council practice that defines the purview for intervention into such conflicts. (2) A ratcheting practice forces opponents to choose between accepting steadily reinforced Council action, as occurred regarding Sudan/Darfur, and outright blockade, as in the case of Syria. We conclude that practices constitute a source of influence that is not captured by the traditional perspectives on Council activities as the consequence of geopolitical interests or of externally evolving international norms like the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P).
The idea for this book arose out of discontent with essentially three shortcomings in the recent literature on the present state of politics in Western democracies and on forms of collective action. The general message resulting from research in the political economy and in forms of democracy is disastrous. We are confronted with a mix of decline, fragmentation, individualization, diminishing trust in institutions hollowed out from the inside, the hoarding of power by small political and economic elites, and the increasing marginalization and pauperization of vast parts of the population. While the accuracy of these trends shall not be called into question, it is noteworthy, and this is the first shortcoming, to what extent that literature tends to neglect one crucial aspect, namely the capacity of those suffering most from the above malaise to coming together and searching for possibilities of collectively halting, reversing, or otherwise influencing decline in defence of their needs and interests. The second shortcoming concerns the literatures on precisely these actors, namely established trade union research and research on social movements. While both fields acknowledge the extent of the current crisis and have submitted numerous books and articles on how their respective research targets are reacting to it, the situation continues to remain one of indifference. There hardly is cross-fertilization beyond the boundaries of established research traditions. At the same time, empirical reality seems to suggest that forms of joint activity by both types of actors may have become more advanced than theoretical reflection is so far prepared to admit. As observed by Fantasia and Stepan-Norris (2004: 561) students of each of the two forms of collective action "(…) mutually neglect each other". At best, trade union researchers and social movement research envisage their counterpart in purely instrumental
Preface
(2019)
Numerous scholars have lately highlighted the importance of cities in the global response to climate change. However, we still have little systematic knowledge on the evolution of urban climate politics in the Global South. In particular, we lack empirical studies that examine how local climate actions arise in political-administrative systems of developing and emerging economies. Therefore, this article adopts a multilevel governance perspective to explore the climate mitigation responses of three major cities in South Africa by looking at their vertical and horizontal integration in the wider governance framework. In the absence of a coherent national climate policy, Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban have developed distinct climate actions within their jurisdictions. In their effort to address climate change, transnational city networks have provided considerable technical support to these cities. Yet, substantial domestic political-economic obstacles hinder the three cities to develop a more ambitious stance on climate change.