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)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (19) (remove)
Die vorliegende Arbeit geht der Fragestellung nach, inwiefern der Beutelsbacher Konsens in einem ausgewählten Schulbuch für den Politikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I in Brandenburg berücksichtigt wird. Um sich dieser Frage anzunähern, werden zunächst die drei Grundsätze des Konsenses wiedergegeben: das Überwältigungsverbot, das Kontroversitätsgebot und die Schülerorientierung. Da der Konsens, auch wenn er von einem Großteil der Fachdidaktikerinnen und Fachdidaktiker geteilt wird, immer wieder Gegenstand von Diskussionen ist, werden in einem ersten Schritt Ansätze zur Aktualisierung bzw. Erweiterung dargestellt und anschließend aktuelle Streitpunkte aufgezeigt. In einem kurzen Zwischenfazit wird dann ein für die Schulbuchanalyse unabdingliches, eindeutiges Verständnis des Konsenses entwickelt.
Im folgenden Schritt wird die Rolle von Schulbüchern als Lehr- und Lernmedien diskutiert. Dabei steht insbesondere die Frage im Zentrum, weshalb sich gerade Schulbücher für eine Analyse im Rahmen der vorliegenden Arbeit eignen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird das Konzept der Schulbuchanalyse vorgestellt. In diesem Rahmen werden der Untersuchungsschwerpunkt (Kontroversitätsgebot) und der Untersuchungsgegenstand (Kontroverse um Migration und Integration) eingegrenzt. In der Folge wird das Schulbuch Politik und Co. 1 mithilfe des erarbeiteten Untersuchungsinstruments (Kodierleitfaden) analysiert. Zudem werden die Ergebnisse pointiert und die gewählte Vorgehensweise reflektiert.
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).
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.
From the international perspective, the peace process in Liberia has generally been described as a successful model for international peacebuilding interventions. But how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country? The aim of this paper is to complement an institutionalist approach looking at the security and justice mechanism in Liberia with some insights into local perceptions in order to answer the following question: how do Liberians perceive the peace process in their country and which institutions have been supportive for the establishment of sustaining peace? After briefly introducing the background of the Liberian conflict and the data collection, I present first results, analyzing the mechanism linking two peacebuilding institutions (peacekeeping and transitional justice) with the establishment of sustaining peace in Liberia.
Verbessern Planspiele als aktive Lernmethode die Lernergebnisse von Student*innen der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (FuK)? Dieser Beitrag untersucht verschiedene UN-Simulationen, um deren Effektivität in Bezug auf drei Wissensbereichen (Fakten- und Verfahrenswissen, Soft Skills) nachzuweisen. Im Gegensatz zu theoretischen Aussagen über die positiven Auswirkungen aktiver Lernumgebungen auf die Lernergebnisse von Student*innen sind empirische Belege begrenzt. Mit diesem Beitrag sollen frühere Behauptungen über die Lerneffekte von UN-Simulationen systematisch überprüft und der Mehrwert für die FuK demonstriert werden. Um umfassende Daten zu erhalten, evaluieren wir drei Planspiele, die eine Reihe von Simulationseigenschaften abdecken: Eine kurze Simulation des UN-Sicherheitsrats, eine regionale UN-Simulation sowie die Teilnahme von zwei Delegationen am National Model United Nations. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Planspiele als Lehrmethode positive Auswirkungen auf die Lernergebnisse der Student*innen haben: Sie führen zu einem besseren Wissen über die UN, fördern Soft Skills sowie Reflexionsfähigkeit.
Signals for 2 degrees C
(2019)
The targets of the Paris Agreement make it necessary to redirect finance flows towards sustainable, low-carbon infrastructures and technologies. Currently, the potential of institutional investors to help finance this transition is widely discussed. Thus, this paper takes a closer look at influence factors for green investment decisions of large European insurance companies. With a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, the importance of policy, market and civil society signals is evaluated. In summary, respondents favor measures that promote green investment, such as feed-in tariffs or adjustments of capital charges for green assets, over ones that make carbon-intensive investments less attractive, such as the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies or a carbon price. While investors currently see a low impact of the carbon price, they rank a substantial reform as an important signal for the future. Respondents also emphasize that policy signals have to be coherent and credible to coordinate expectations.
This book is about the building of alliances and about joint activities between two groups of social movement actors ascribed increasing relevance for the functioning and the eventual amendment of democratic capitalism. The chapters provide a well-balanced mix of theoretical and empirical accounts on the political, social and economic catalysts behind the changing motives finding expression in a multitude of novel types of joint collective action and inter-organizational alliances. The contributors to this volume go beyond attempting to place unions, movements, crises, precariousness, protests and coalitions at the centre of the research. Instead, they focus on actors who themselves transcend clear-cut social camps. They look at the values and motives underlying collective action by both types of actors as much as at their structural and strategic properties, and inter-organizational relations and networks. This creates a fresh, genuine and historically valid account of the incompatibilities and the commonalities of movements and unions, and of prospects for inter-organizational learning.
Preface
(2019)
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