320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (81) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Postprint (40)
- Doctoral Thesis (16)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Article (8)
- Master's Thesis (6)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (81) (remove)
Keywords
- European Union (8)
- Europäische Union (7)
- Germany (4)
- Außenpolitik (3)
- Demokratisierung (3)
- Deutschland (3)
- Iran (3)
- Modernisierung (3)
- Verwaltung (3)
- democracy (3)
Institute
- Sozialwissenschaften (27)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (18)
- WeltTrends e.V. Potsdam (15)
- Extern (8)
- Philosophische Fakultät (5)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (4)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (3)
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (1)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Institut für Künste und Medien (1)
Within the context of United Nations (UN) environmental institutions, it has become apparent that intergovernmental responses alone have been insufficient for dealing with pressing transboundary environmental problems. Diverging economic and political interests, as well as broader changes in power dynamics and norms within global (environmental) governance, have resulted in negotiation and implementation efforts by UN member states becoming stuck in institutional gridlock and inertia. These developments have sparked a renewed debate among scholars and practitioners about an imminent crisis of multilateralism, accompanied by calls for reforming UN environmental institutions. However, with the rise of transnational actors and institutions, states are not the only relevant actors in global environmental governance. In fact, the fragmented architectures of different policy domains are populated by a hybrid mix of state and non-state actors, as well as intergovernmental and transnational institutions. Therefore, coping with the complex challenges posed by severe and ecologically interdependent transboundary environmental problems requires global cooperation and careful management from actors beyond national governments.
This thesis investigates the interactions of three intergovernmental UN treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. These are the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. While previous research has acknowledged the increasing autonomy and influence of treaty secretariats in global policy-making, little attention has been paid to their strategic interactions with non-state actors, such as non-governmental organizations, civil society actors, businesses, and transnational institutions and networks, or their coordination with other UN agencies. Through qualitative case-study research, this thesis explores the means and mechanisms of these interactions and investigates their consequences for enhancing the effectiveness and coherence of institutional responses to underlying and interdependent environmental issues.
Following a new institutionalist ontology, the conceptual and theoretical framework of this study draws on global governance research, regime theory, and scholarship on international bureaucracies. From an actor-centered perspective on institutional interplay, the thesis employs concepts such as orchestration and interplay management to assess the interactions of and among treaty secretariats. The research methodology involves structured, focused comparison, and process-tracing techniques to analyze empirical data from diverse sources, including official documents, various secondary materials, semi-structured interviews with secretariat staff and policymakers, and observations at intergovernmental conferences.
The main findings of this research demonstrate that secretariats employ tailored orchestration styles to manage or bypass national governments, thereby raising global ambition levels for addressing transboundary environmental problems. Additionally, they engage in joint interplay management to facilitate information sharing, strategize activities, and mobilize relevant actors, thereby improving coherence across UN environmental institutions. Treaty secretariats play a substantial role in influencing discourses and knowledge exchange with a wide range of actors. However, they face barriers, such as limited resources, mandates, varying leadership priorities, and degrees of politicization within institutional processes, which may hinder their impact. Nevertheless, the secretariats, together with non-state actors, have made progress in advancing norm-building processes, integrated policy-making, capacity building, and implementation efforts within and across framework conventions. Moreover, they utilize innovative means of coordination with actors beyond national governments, such as data-driven governance, to provide policy-relevant information for achieving overarching governance targets.
Importantly, this research highlights the growing interactions between treaty secretariats and non-state actors, which not only shape policy outcomes but also have broader implications for the polity and politics of international institutions. The findings offer opportunities for rethinking collective agency and actor dynamics within UN entities, addressing gaps in institutionalist theory concerning the interaction of actors in inter-institutional spaces. Furthermore, the study addresses emerging challenges and trends in global environmental governance that are pertinent to future policy-making. These include reflections for the debate on reforming international institutions, the role of emerging powers in a changing international world order, and the convergence of public and private authority through new alliance-building and a division of labor between international bureaucracies and non-state actors in global environmental governance.
Narratives are shaping our understanding of the world. They convey values and norms and point to desirable future developments. In this way, they justify and legitimize political actions and social practices. Once a narrative has emerged and this world view is supported by broad societal groups, narratives can provide powerful momentum to trigger innovation and changes in the course of action. Narratives, however, are not necessarily based on evidence and precise categories, but can instead be vague and ambiguous in order to be acceptable and attractive to different actors. However, the more open and inclusive a narrative is, the less impact can be expected. We investigate whether there is a shared narrative in research for the sustainable economy and how this can be evaluated in terms of its potential societal impact. The paper carves out the visions for the future that have been underlying the research projects conducted within the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) funding programme "The Sustainable Economy". It then analyzes whether these visions are compatible with narratives dominating societal discourse on the sustainable economy, and concludes how the use of visions and narratives in research can contribute to fostering societal transformations.
Enacted in 2009, the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC) is a milestone in the institutionalisation of climate action in Brazil. It sets greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets and a set of principles and directives that are intended to lay the foundations for a cross-sectoral and multilevel climate policy in the country. However, after more than a decade since its establishment, the PNMC has experienced several obstacles related to its governance, such as coordination, planning and implementation issues. All of these issues pose threats to the effectiveness of GHG mitigation actions in the country.
By looking at the intragovernmental and intergovernmental relationships that have taken place during the lifetime of the PNMC and its sectoral plans on agriculture (the Sectoral Plan for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change for the Consolidation of a Low-Carbon Economy in Agriculture [ABC Plan]), transport and urban mobility (the Sectoral Plan for Transportation and Urban Mobility for Mitigation and Adaption of Climate Change [PSTM]), this exploratory qualitative research investigates the Brazilian climate change governance guided by the following relevant questions: how are climate policy arrangements organised and coordinated among governmental actors to mitigate GHG emissions in Brazil? What might be the reasons behind how such arrangements are established? What are the predominant governance gaps of the different GHG mitigation actions examined? Why do these governance gaps occur?
Theoretically grounded in the literature on multilevel governance and coordination of public policies, this study employs a novel analytical framework that aims to identify and discuss the occurrence of four types of governance gaps (i.e. politics, institutions and processes, resources and information) in the three GHG mitigation actions (cases) examined (i.e. the PNMC, ABC Plan and PSTM). The research results are twofold. First, they reveal that Brazil has struggled to organise and coordinate governmental actors from different policy constituencies and different levels of government in the implementation of the GHG mitigation actions examined. Moreover, climate policymaking has mostly been influenced by the Ministry of Environment (MMA) overlooking the multilevel and cross-sectoral approaches required for a country’s climate policy to mitigate and adapt to climate change, especially if it is considered an economy-wide Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), as the Brazilian one is.
Second, the study identifies a greater manifestation of gaps in politics (e.g. lack of political will in supporting climate action), institutions and processes (e.g. failures in the design of institutions and policy instruments, coordination and monitoring flaws, and difficulties in building climate federalism) in all cases studied. It also identifies that there have been important advances in the production of data and information for decision-making and, to a lesser extent, in the allocation of technical and financial resources in the cases studied; however, it is necessary to highlight the limitation of these improvements due to turf wars, a low willingness to share information among federal government players, a reduced volume of financial resources and an unequal distribution of capacities among the federal ministries and among the three levels of government.
A relevant finding is that these gaps tend to be explained by a combination of general and sectoral set aspects. Regarding the general aspects, which are common to all cases examined, the following can be mentioned: i) unbalanced policy capabilities existing among the different levels of government, ii) a limited (bureaucratic) practice to produce a positive coordination mode within cross-sectoral policies, iii) the socioeconomic inequalities that affect the way different governments and economic sectors perceive the climate issue (selective perception) and iv) the reduced dialogue between national and subnational governments on the climate agenda (poor climate federalism). The following sectoral aspects can be mentioned: i) the presence of path dependencies that make the adoption of transformative actions harder and ii) the absence of perceived co-benefits that the climate agenda can bring to each economic sector (e.g. reputational gains, climate protection and access to climate financial markets).
By addressing the theoretical and practical implications of the results, this research provides key insights to tackle the governance gaps identified and to help Brazil pave the way to achieving its NDCs and net-zero targets. At the theoretical level, this research and the current country’s GHG emissions profile suggest that the Brazilian climate policy is embedded in a cross-sectoral and multilevel arena, which requires the effective involvement of different levels of political and bureaucratic powers and the consideration of the country’s socioeconomic differences. Thus, the research argues that future improvements of the Brazilian climate policy and its governance setting must frame climate policy as an economic development agenda, the ramifications of which go beyond the environmental sector. An initial consequence of this new perspective may be a shift in the political and technical leadership from the MMA to the institutions of the centre of government (Executive Office of the President of Brazil) and those in charge of the country’s economic policy (Ministry of Economy). This change could provide greater capacity for coordination, integration and enforcement as well as for addressing certain expected gaps (e.g. financial and technical resources). It could also lead to greater political prioritisation of the agenda at the highest levels of government. Moreover, this shift of the institutional locus could contribute to greater harmonisation between domestic development priorities and international climate politics. Finally, the research also suggests that this approach would reduce bureaucratic elitism currently in place due to climate policy being managed by Brazilian governmental institutions, which is still a theme of a few ministries and a reason for the occurrence of turf wars.
Why do exercises in collaborative governance often witness more impasse than advantage? This cumulative dissertation undertakes a micro-level analysis of collaborative governance to tackle this research puzzle. It situates micropolitics at the very center of analysis: a wide range of activities, interventions, and tactics used by actors – be they conveners, facilitators, or participants – to shape the collaborative exercise. It is by focusing on these daily minutiae, and on the consequences that they bring along, the study argues, that we can better understand why and how collaboration can become stuck or unproductive. To do so, the foundational part of this dissertation (Article 1) uses power as a sensitizing concept to investigate the micro-dynamics that shape collaboration. It develops an analytical approach to advance the study of collaborative governance at the empirical level under a power-sensitive and process-oriented perspective. The subsequent articles follow the dissertation's red thread of investigating the micropolitics of collaborative governance by showing facilitation artefacts' interrelatedness and contribution to the potential success or failure of collaborative arrangements (Article 2); and by examining the specialized knowledge, skills and practices mobilized when designing a collaborative process (Article 3). The work is based on an abductive research approach, tacking back and forth between empirical data and theory, and offers a repertoire of concepts – from analytical terms (designed and emerging interaction orders, flows of power, arenas for power), to facilitation practices (scripting, situating, and supervising) and types of knowledge (process expertise) – to illustrate and study the detailed and constant work (and rework) that surrounds collaborative arrangements. These concepts sharpen the way researchers can look at, observe, and understand collaborative processes at a micro level. The thesis thereby elucidates the subtleties of power, which may be overlooked if we focus only on outcomes rather than the processes that engender them, and supports efforts to identify potential sources of impasse.
This chapter takes the ongoing conflict in South Sudan as a starting point for assessing the concept of transitional justice as such and its implementation in the country in particular. Following a brief description of the conflict and the peace processes, the author sheds light on the shortcomings of the established concept of transitional justice in the situation at hand. Then, the author outlines the alternate concept of transformational justice und takes a closer look at its implications on the situation in South Sudan. The author highlights existing initiatives of transformative justice and is very much in favour of their victim-centered approach.
At different times and places, civic engagement in nonviolent resistance (NVR) has repeatedly shown to be an effective tool in times of conflict to initiate societal change from below. History teaches us that there have been successes (Mahatma Gandhi in India) and failures (the Tiananmen Square protests in China).
Along with the recognition of the duality between transformative potential and stark consequences, the historical development of NVR was accompanied by the emergence of scholarly debate, fractured along disputes around purpose, character and effectivity of nonviolent actions taken by civil society stakeholders engaged in making their voices heard. One of the field’s current points of interest is the examination of the long-term effects of NVR movements resulting in societal transformation on the stability and adequacy of a subsequently altered or emerging democracy, suggesting that NVR contributes positively to the sustainable and representative design of an egalitarian governing system.
The conclusion of the Nepalese civil war in 2006 should pose as an unambiguous example for the illustration of this phenomenon, but simultaneously raises the question why there was no successful implementation of a transitional process focusing on the needs of the victims.
Transitional justice is conventionally theorized as how a society deals with past injustices after regime change and alongside democratization. Nonetheless, scholars have not reached a consensus on what is to be included or excluded. Recent ideas of transformative justice seek to expand the understanding of transitional justice to include systemic restructuring and socioeconomic considerations. In the context of Nicaragua — where two transitions occurred within an 11-year span — very little transitional justice took place, in terms of the conventional concept of top-down legalistic mechanisms; however, distinct structural changes and socioeconomic policies can be found with each regime change. By analyzing the transformative justice elements of Nicaragua’s dual transition, this chapter seeks to expand the understanding of transitional justice to include how these factors influence goals of transitions such as sustainable peace and reconciliation for past injustices. The results argue for increased attention to transformative justice theories and a more nuanced conception of justice.
While the concept of transitional justice and its range of measures have gained importance on an international level to come to terms with major crimes of the past, colonial crimes and mass violence committed by Western actors have not been addressed by transitional justice so far. In this chapter, the Herero’s and Nama’s struggle for justice for the genocide on their ancestors by Germany from 1904 – 1908 and the arising challenges are set in relation to conceptual debates in the field of transitional justice. Building on current debates in the field, suggesting more structural and transformative conceptualizations of transitional justice and an approach ‘from below’, it is argued that decolonial activism of formerly colonized communities and transitional justice debates can inform each other in a dialogic and fruitful form to formulate suggestions for a process towards post-colonial justice.
This paper aims to contribute a different approach to transitional justice, one in which political decisions are rocketed to the forefront of the research. Theory asserts that, after a transition to democracy, it is the constituency who defines the direction a country will take. Therefore, pleasing them should be at the fore of the responses taken by those in power. However, reality distances itself from theory. History provides us with many examples of the contrary, which indicates that the politicization of transitional justice is an ever-present event. The first section will outline current definitions and obstacles faced by transitional justice, focusing on the implicit ties between them and the aforementioned politicization. An original categorization of Transitional Justice as a method of analysis will also be introduced, which I denominate Political Opportunism. The case of Argentina, a country that is usually described as a model to export but that after 35 years is still dealing with the consequences brought by the contradictions of using several methods of justice, will then be reinterpreted through this perspective. At the end of the paper, the inevitable question will be posed: can this new angle be exported and implemented in every transition?
This chapter deals with the problem that theories of peace building, conflict resolution and reconciliation were predominately created in the West and, therefore, do not necessarily fit the understanding of peace, conflict, and resolution in non-Western societies and cultures. Within these societies, the acceptance of suffering may also be higher, which leads to different priorities of conflict resolution approaches. Furthermore, this chapter deals with the question of whether the current understanding of wars and the nature of conflict change the basis of established conflict theories. These theoretical approaches are then applied in Sierra Leone as a non-Western negotiation scenario.