Search results

The paper offers an actor-centered perspective on the democratic backsliding, focusing in particular on the interplay of internal and international actors in preventing (or accelerating) the backsliding processes. Its main argument is without acknowledging the variation in actors' constellations, it is also impossible to explain the variation in the outcomes of the backsliding processes. The paper is based on a mixed methods design: after the initial large-N investigation, it focuses on two empirical cases (Poland and Romania) to identify the role of actors and their interconnections in the backsliding processes.

Why do countries like China and Russia appeal to international law to support their policy? In addition, why is the liberal system in a crisis if ideas like democracy and human rights are so pervasive within the political debate? In the following paper, I will try to answer these questions by looking at how liberal theory has influenced the development of today's governance structure. I will then move to comment on what I call the "liberal bias" of international governance referring to relevant literature on the concept of categorisation and categorical thought in neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Finally, following my theoretical baseline, I will present a quick analysis of how autocracies use linguistic categories to influence the evolution of liberal values.

In this paper, I observe and analyse the developments in the Estonian national identity discourse from the bases era in 1940 all the way until Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was declared on 21 July. My understanding of hegemony is based on the Gramscian tradition, and the primary aim of this work is to focus on observing the destabilisation of the old hegemonic discourse. In order to map out the dominant discourse in Estonian media, I have worked through the numbers of Postimees from 01.01.1940-21.07.1940 and categorised the most important discourse elements. The change of the official discourse happened in June of 1940, with the most radical change happening with the change of government on 21 June. The new hegemon defined the old government as an enemy from the first speech onwards. Nevertheless, the new discourse was in the beginning clearly mixing elements from the old regime as well, continuing the positive narratives describing Estonian history and having both pro-Soviet and pro-independence people still in media, although the adopted narratives were usually manipulated to serve the new regime. There were additionally unexpected new narratives entering the discourse even after the regime change, which weakened the build-up of a logical alternative narrative. Despite apparent Soviet attempts to "get consent" from Estonians, the new discourse seems to have dominated only on paper.

The paper contains reflections of Ruslan Grinberg, a prominent Russian economist and social scientist, dedicated to the death of Mikhail Gorbachev. Grinberg serves as an advisor to Gorbachev during the Perestroika era and had close contact with him throughout the last three decades. In the essay, he reflects upon the key elements of Gorbachev's legacy and their importance for the contemporary world.

Do autocracies cooperate internationally? This working paper investigates whether regime-type explains co-sponsorship patterns at the United Nations General Assembly. Co-sponsorship is a relatively costly signal of international cooperation at the UN, which is analyzed based on a novel dataset, including newly validated issue categories and co-sponsorship behavior on 14.995 draft resolutions. Theoretically, the paper unifies three strands of literature: the recent literature on autocratic regional organizations, the growing literature on foreign policy of autocratic regimes and the traditional analysis of the United Nations. The results suggest that regime-type plays a strong role in co-sponsorship behavior: democracies co-sponsor with their peers, whereas autocracies, in line with existing findings, cooperate overall less at the UN. They do, however, prefer to co-sponsor with one another over partners of other regime-types. This seems to be particularly true in issue areas where autocratic regimes could attempt to counter democratic norm-setting, such as human rights. There is mixed results concerning the effect of autocratic regional organizations on autocratic co-sponsorship. Preliminary results suggest at least some positive effect on autocracies and highlight the need for further research.

This study examines why some post-Soviet states are more peaceful than others. The analysis is conducted within the framework of a positivist, variable-based research design. The dependent variable is defined as the degree of peacefulness of the respective former Soviet Republics and measured by the Global Peace Index (investigation period: 2008-2017; Baltics excluded). Based on theoretical references, four independent variables are selected: (1) degree of democratization, (2) level of corruption, (3) stage of development, and (4) degree trade openness. The expected causal relationship between the explanatory factors and the phenomenon to be explained is formulated in the form of hypotheses: H 1: The higher the degree of democratization, the higher the degree of peacefulness (cases: Moldova; Turkmenistan). H 2: The lower the degree of corruption, the higher the degree of peacefulness (cases: Georgia; Turkmenistan). H 3: The higher the stage of development, the higher the degree of peacefulness (cases: Russia; Tajikistan). H 4: The higher the degree of trade openness, the higher the degree of peacefulness (cases: Kyrgyzstan; Russia). The ambivalent results of the empirical study suggest that none of the influencing factors can sufficiently explain the varying degrees of peacefulness of the post-Soviet countries.

Trotz ähnlicher Ausgangsbedingungen bestehen zwischen den postsozialistischen neuen Mitgliedsstaaten, die im Zuge der beiden Osterweiterungsrunden 2004 und 2007 der EU beitraten, signifikante Unterschiede hinsichtlich der Implementierung von EU-Gemeinschaftsrecht. In dieser Arbeit werden die Ursachen für (non-)compliance mit EU-Recht während der post-accession period durch Anwendung der drei Theorieansätze enforcement, management und legitimacy untersucht. Die Ergebnisse der empirischen Analyse zeigen, dass politische Macht und die Unterstützung euroskeptischer Parteien Einfluss auf das compliance-Verhalten der neuen Mitgliedsstaaten haben. Administrative Effizienz lässt sich hingegen erst nach einem Vergleich der postsozialistischen Länder mit den Staaten der Süderweiterung als ursächlich für (non-)compliance festlegen, während wirtschaftliche Macht durch Einbeziehen der südeuropäischen Mitgliedsstaaten an Erklärungskraft verliert.

"Während sich die politikwissenschaftliche Forschung im Rahmen des Transitionsparadigmas lange
Zeit auf die Erforschung der Herstellung und Konsolidierung von Demokratien fokussierte, zeigte
sich in den vergangenen Jahren eine wachsende Debatte um den Zusammenbruch demokratischer
Regime. In der vorliegenden Masterarbeit werden diese Zusammenbrüche als Reautokratisierungen
konzeptualisiert und der Effekt sozio-ökonomischer und politisch-institutioneller Bedingungsfaktoren
untersucht. Hierfür wird auf Basis einer minimalistischen Demokratiekonzeption eine Operationalisierung von Reautokratisierungen vorgenommen. Diese werden für den Zeitraum
1996 bis 2013 in einer logistischen Regressionsanalyse untersucht. Hierbei zeigen sich signifikante Effekte für die wirtschaftlichen Wachstumsraten sowie die Governanceleistung." (Autorenreferat)