320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (254) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (171)
- Part of a Book (33)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (16)
- Doctoral Thesis (14)
- Other (9)
- Review (8)
- Working Paper (2)
- Journal/Publication series (1)
Language
- English (254) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (254) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (7)
- international organizations (6)
- Security Council (5)
- decision-making (5)
- parliamentary government (5)
- World Bank (4)
- bicameralism (4)
- democracy (4)
- governance (4)
- international organisations (4)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (144)
- Sozialwissenschaften (48)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (29)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (13)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (5)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (5)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (5)
- Historisches Institut (4)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (3)
- Forschungsbereich „Politik, Verwaltung und Management“ (3)
Donors of development assistance for health typically provide funding for a range of disease focus areas, such as maternal health and child health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, and other infectious diseases. But funding for each disease category does not match closely its contribution to the disability and loss of life it causes and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. We argue that peer influences in the social construction of global health priorities contribute to explaining this misalignment. Aid policy-makers are embedded in a social environment encompassing other donors, health experts, advocacy groups, and international officials. This social environment influences the conceptual and normative frameworks of decision-makers, which in turn affect their funding priorities. Aid policy-makers are especially likely to emulate decisions on funding priorities taken by peers with whom they are most closely involved in the context of expert and advocacy networks. We draw on novel data on donor connectivity through health IGOs and health INGOs and assess the argument by applying spatial regression models to health aid disbursed globally between 1990 and 2017. The analysis provides strong empirical support for our argument that the involvement in overlapping expert and advocacy networks shapes funding priorities regarding disease categories and recipient countries in health aid.
The limitations and possibilities of the state in solving societal problems are perennial issues in the political and policy sciences and increasingly so in studies of environmental politics. With the aim of better understanding the role of the state in addressing environmental degradation through policy making, this article investigates the nexus between the environmental policy outputs and the environmental performance. Drawing on three theoretical perspectives on the state and market nexus in the environmental dilemma, we identify five distinct pathways. We then examine the extent to which these pathways are manifested in the real world. Our empirical investigation covers up to 37 countries for the period 1970–2010. While we see no global pattern of linkages between policy outputs and performance, our exploratory analysis finds evidence of policy effects, which suggest that the state can, under certain circumstances, improve the environment through policy making.
‘The Territorialities of U.S. Imperialisms’ sets into relation U.S. imperial and Indigenous conceptions of territoriality as articulated in U.S. legal texts and Indigenous life writing in the 19th century. It analyzes the ways in which U.S. legal texts as “legal fictions” narratively press to affirm the United States’ territorial sovereignty and coherence in spite of its reliance on a variety of imperial practices that flexibly disconnect and (re)connect U.S. sovereignty, jurisdiction and territory.
At the same time, the book acknowledges Indigenous life writing as legal texts in their own right and with full juridical force, which aim to highlight the heterogeneity of U.S. national territory both from their individual perspectives and in conversation with these legal fictions. Through this, the book’s analysis contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the coloniality of U.S. legal fictions, while highlighting territoriality as a key concept in the fashioning of the narrative of U.S. imperialism.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the most important multilateral institutions having the ambition to shape global governance and the only organ of the global community that can adopt legally binding resolutions for the maintenance of international peace and security and, if necessary, authorize the use of force. Created in the aftermath of World War II by its victors, the UNSC’s constellation looks increasingly anachronistic, however, in light of the changing global distribution of power. Adapting the institutional structure and decision-making procedures of the UNSC has proven to be one of the most difficult challenges of the last decades, while it is the institution that has probably been faced with the most vociferous calls for reform. Although there have been changes to the informal ways in which outside actors are drawn into the UNSC’s work and activities, many of the major players in the current international system seem to be deprived from equal treatment in its core patterns of decision-making. Countries such as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, alongside emerging African nations such as Nigeria and South Africa, are among the states eager to secure permanent representation on the Council. By comparison, selected BRICS countries, China and Russia - in contrast to their role in other multilateral institutions - are permanent members of the UNSC and with this, have been “insiders” for a long time. This renders the situation of the UNSC different from global institutions, in which traditionally, Western powers have dominated the agenda.
The chapter explores how the Security Council has reacted to the changing global order in terms of institutional reform and its working methods. First, we look at how the Security Council’s setup looks increasingly anachronistic against the tremendous shifts in global power. Yet, established and rising powers are not disengaging. In contrast, they are turning to the Council to address growing challenges posed by the changing nature of armed conflict, the surge of terrorism and foreign fighters, nuclear proliferation and persistent intra-state conflicts. Then, we explore institutional and political hurdles for Council reform. While various reform models have been suggested, none of them gained the necessary global support. Instead, we demonstrate how the Council has increased the representation of emerging powers in informal ways. Potential candidates for permanent seats and their regional counterparts are committed as elected members, peacekeeping contributors or within the Peacebuilding Commission. Finally, we analyze how innovatively the Council has reacted to global security challenges. This includes working methods reform, expansion of sanctions regimes and involvement of non-state actors. We conclude that even though the Council’s membership has not yet been altered, it has reacted to the changing global order in ways previously unaccounted for.
To ensure political survival, autocrats must prevent popular rebellion, and political repression is a means to that end. However, autocrats face threats from both the inside and the outside of the center of power. They must avoid popular rebellion and at the same time share power with strategic actors who enjoy incentive to challenge established power-sharing arrangements whenever repression is ordered. Can autocrats turn repression in a way that allows trading one threat off against the other? This chapter first argues that prior research offers scant insight on that question because it relies on umbrella concepts and questionable measurements of repression. Next, the chapter disaggregates repression into restrictions and violence and reflects on their drawbacks. Citizens adapt to the restriction of political civil liberties, and violence backfires against its originators. Hence, restrictions require enforcement, and violence requires moderation. When interpreted as complements, it becomes clear that restrictions and violence have the potential to compensate for their respective weaknesses. The complementarity between violence and restrictions turns political repression into a valuable addition to the authoritarian toolkit. The chapter concludes with an application of these ideas to the twin problems of authoritarian control and power-sharing.
In recent years the framings of global health security have shifted while the structures governing global health have largely remained the same. One feature of the emerging re-ordering is the unresolved allocation of accountability between state and non-state actors. This brings to critical challenges to global health security to the fore. The first is that the consensus on the seeming shift from state to human security framing with regard to the global human right to health (security) risks losing its salience. Second, this conceptual challenge is mirrored on the operational level: if states and non-state actors do not assume responsibility for health security, who or what can guarantee health security? In order to address global health security against the backdrop of these twenty-first Century challenges, this article proceeds in three parts. First, it analyses the shortcomings of the current state-based World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health security. Second, taking into account the rising pressures posed to global health security and the inadequacy both of state-based and of ad hoc non-state responses, it proposes a new framing. Third, the article offers initial insights into the operational application of beyond state responses to (health) security challenges.
Since 2013, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can examine individual communications under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This opens up the possibility to interpret Covenant provisions in a thorough manner. With regard to forced evictions and the right to housing under Article 11 ICESCR, one can discern a fast-developing approach concerning the proportionality analysis of evictions, entailing the establishment of specific criteria that may guide such analysis. This paper seeks to delineate these developments and will also shed light on possible general trends on the topic of limitations within the Committee’s emerging jurisprudence. In doing so, the paper will address if, and how, the developing proportionality analysis under the individual complaints procedure takes into consideration multi-discriminatory dimensions of State measures and how it specifically relates to or incorporates other ICESCR-concepts, such as minimum core obligations or the reasonableness review under Article 8(4) OP ICESCR.
International law is constantly navigating the tension between preserving the status quo and adapting to new exigencies. But when and how do such adaptation processes give way to a more profound transformation, if not a crisis of international law? To address the question of how attacks on the international legal order are changing the value orientation of international law, this book brings together scholars of international law and international relations. By combining theoretical and methodological analyses with individual case studies, this book offers readers conceptualizations and tools to systematically examine value change and explore the drivers and mechanisms of these processes. These case studies scrutinize value change in the foundational norms of the post-1945 order and in norms representing the rise of the international legal order post-1990. They cover diverse issues: the prohibition of torture, the protection of women’s rights, the prohibition of the use of force, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, sustainability norms, and accountability for core international crimes. The challenges to each norm, the reactions by norm defenders, and the fate of each norm are also studied. Combined, the analyses show that while a few norms have remained surprisingly robust, several are changing, either in substance or in legal or social validity. The book concludes by integrating the conceptual and empirical insights from this interdisciplinary exchange to assess and explain the ambiguous nature of value change in international law beyond the extremes of mere progress or decline.