Suchergebnisse

http://doc.rero.ch/record/32540?ln=fr ; International audience ; In my reply to Jeremy Waldron's article \textquoteleftAre Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefit of the International Rule of Law?\textquoteright, I draw upon and in some ways expand Waldron's important contribution to our understanding of the international rule of law. First of all, I suggest that Waldron's argument about the international rule of law can be used to illuminate how we should understand the legitimate authority of international law over sovereign states, but also how some of sovereign states\textquoteright residual independence ought to be protected from legitimate international law. Secondly, I argue that the democratic pedigree of the international rule of law plays a role when assessing how international law binds democratic sovereign states and whether the international rule of law can and ought to benefit their individual subjects. Finally, I emphasize how Waldron's argument that the international rule of law ought to benefit individuals in priority has implications for the sources of international law and for what sources can be regarded as sources of valid law.

Until 2012 many gatherings have been organised discussing the future of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in the European research landscape; Many wise words were spoken and good ideas had been launched before, but to connect them with specific work programmes and discuss them in an open and broad manner, was another matter. Our Lithuanian colleagues recognised that the timing of their country's EU Presidency would be the perfect moment to discuss the role and relevance of SSH in the upcoming Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, with their wider impact. The new programme foresees the full integration of SSH into the "Grand Societal Challenges" that Europe faces and is determined to tackle through research, development and innovation. The realisation of these ambitious goals has yet to take shape. The conference in September 2013 was one of the many potential places to make this happen. Before the start of the conference we conducted a "consultation process" within the European SSH communities to hear the voices of as many contributors as possible. More than 300 very detailed responses have brought up interesting issues, which helped us to structure the conference and collect recommendations for drafting a declaration. We collaborated closely with the European Commission in preparing this conference: as a result, Commission staff participated in all sessions where the integration into the seven societal challenges was discussed. We asked prominent scholars from all branches of SSH to provide input. The first day of the conference concentrated on reflecting and assessing where we stand, whereas the second day was dedicated to a detailed discussion of the next necessary steps towards achieving integration. This report collects all conference contributions and the resulting recommendations.

Scientific behavior is as common to the humanities as it is to the social sciences—in fact, many of the humanities are social sciences, a condition that should shame neither party. Though there is a clear intellectual line beween the arts and the sciences, no such line can be drawn between the humanistic social sciences and the "social" social sciences. There is a difference in perceived social status, which could be reduced by a better understanding of the common ground on which the humanist and the social scientist stand, Professor Homans, of Harvard, states as his qualifications "that I took my bachelor's degree in English literature, I am a professor of sociology, and I write history." This article was prepared for the American Council of Learned Societies and is published with its kind permission.

International audience ; International constitutionalism is en vogue among scholars of general international law. Promoted since the 1930s in Europe and rediscovered in the 1990s, it has meant different things to different people, has been promoted for very different reasons, and has also been criticized on many different grounds. For a long time, the idea of constitutionalism worked mostly as a heuristic device of unification or coherence in times of legal fragmentation within international law and of denationalization of constitutional law, but recently it has also become a catalyst of change and a promise of increased legitimacy both of and within international law. Interestingly, and by contrast to what has been the case in discussions of European constitutionalism in recent years, international lawyers have only reluctantly started grappling with constitutional theory. They usually focus on what they take as material evidence of constitutionalization in international law, or draw, a contrario, compensatory conclusions from the deconstitutionalization of national law or the internationalization of national constitutional law. Thus, the development of relative normativity in general international law (e.g., the emergence of objective standards, the recognition of imperative international norms, the development of erga omnes rights and duties) and the emergence of new lawmakers besides states (e.g., the development of multilateral law-making under international organizations' (IOs) auspices and the increasing influence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)) have gradually become the bits and pieces of a reconstructed international constitutional order, whereas some of them may actually amount to little more than disparate signs of deeper legalization, integration, or institutionalization of international law.

Over the last decade, the European Court of Justice has breathed new life into the old notion of autonomy of the EC/EU legal order. This was the case in Kadi, in Opinion 2/13 on the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights, and this was recently reconfirmed in Achmea. These decisions convey the message that, in face of adversity, EU law is capable of relying on its own system of principles and values. In contrast, in a line of cases starting with Dano and Alimanovic, the Court has reacted to a sensitive political and economic environment by making EU law responsive to what was considered to be a pressing societal demand.2 It is as though, in this particular context, respect was owed to collective feelings prevailing in Member States' societies and also to shifting moods. This raises the question of the extent to which this curious oscillation between common values and collective feelings is capable of becoming one of the defining features of our current Union and its law. (First paragraph)

Scientific natural science, which had been established in European culture since the mid-17th century, began to transmit samples of scientific knowledge into the field of studying social reality. Until the 19th century, the only mental form of reflecting this reality was "primary history," as Hegel defined it, i.e. tradition of historiography coming from Herodotus. This tradition received its design, oriented towards the field of scientific rationality, from the German historian Leopold von Ranke: to show "how it really was" (wie es eigentlich gewesen). Its social function is the formation of national historical memory. But methodological reflection at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries revealed, as it seemed to it, two radical differences between "primary history" and other "sciences of culture" from natural science. In this regard, the categories of "values" and "understanding" were emphasized. The presence of these categories in the foundations of any science determines its specification as a humanitarian science. The first attempts to transfer certain aspects of the disciplinary matrices of natural science to the sphere of social science are associated with the names of Kant and Marx. Both attempts were unsuccessful. But, unlike Kant's, the "materialist understanding of history" found its supporters and successors. Its main error is the unlawful direct transfer of the semantic content of the category "matter", as it developed in natural science (the relationships of things), to the relationships between people endowed with consciousness. The addressee of social sciences are cultural forms, the existence of which has an objective status of existence, but relative to the individual consciousness of acting people. These are, for example, social institutions. The humanities deal with meanings, the existence of which is determined by systems of social communications.

International audience ; Policymaking in government ministries and agencies is the inevitable result of the complex and technical nature of modern policy issues. This reality creates a puzzle: How can policymaking inside the executive remain true to democratic values? We confront this question through an analysis of modern pressures on French public law. We ask if the US. approach, which we call "rulemaking accountability," has any lessons for French reformers. The primary aim of this type of accountability is facilitating public input to assure that democratic values extend into administrative policymaking. In France, the public administration traditionally has been understood, not as a threat to democracy, but as an instrument for achieving republican ideals. Statutes set out broad frameworks, but their concrete implementation should be left to impartial, expert bureaucrats. A specialized judiciary, also composed of civil servants, oversees the administration. Developments are putting pressure on French public law. These call for enhanced public participation, the creation of independent agencies, and the use of new forms of technocratic policy analysis. Can these new trends produce a stronger, more democratically legitimate stihte, or are they in such deep tension that France will either return to old practices or experience a drastic realignment ofpublic power and public law? The French system has begun to respond to these new pressures, but they are still frequently resisted, and reforms have not coalesced around a consensus view. However, recent decisions of the French high courts suggest a move toward more oversight of the democratic legitimacy of administrative processes. Furthermore, efforts occurring inside and outside the government are encouraging more open policymaking and the more systematic study of government programs. Future developments are by no means clear, but the elements are in place for reforms that enhance public accountability and support systematic analysis of policy impacts.

International audience ; Policymaking in government ministries and agencies is the inevitable result of the complex and technical nature of modern policy issues. This reality creates a puzzle: How can policymaking inside the executive remain true to democratic values? We confront this question through an analysis of modern pressures on French public law. We ask if the US. approach, which we call "rulemaking accountability," has any lessons for French reformers. The primary aim of this type of accountability is facilitating public input to assure that democratic values extend into administrative policymaking. In France, the public administration traditionally has been understood, not as a threat to democracy, but as an instrument for achieving republican ideals. Statutes set out broad frameworks, but their concrete implementation should be left to impartial, expert bureaucrats. A specialized judiciary, also composed of civil servants, oversees the administration. Developments are putting pressure on French public law. These call for enhanced public participation, the creation of independent agencies, and the use of new forms of technocratic policy analysis. Can these new trends produce a stronger, more democratically legitimate stihte, or are they in such deep tension that France will either return to old practices or experience a drastic realignment ofpublic power and public law? The French system has begun to respond to these new pressures, but they are still frequently resisted, and reforms have not coalesced around a consensus view. However, recent decisions of the French high courts suggest a move toward more oversight of the democratic legitimacy of administrative processes. Furthermore, efforts occurring inside and outside the government are encouraging more open policymaking and the more systematic study of government programs. Future developments are by no means clear, but the elements are in place for reforms that enhance public accountability and support systematic analysis of policy impacts.

This edited volume focuses on big data implications for computational social science and humanities from management to usage. The first part of the book covers geographic data, text corpus data, and social media data, and exemplifies their concrete applications in a wide range of fields including anthropology, economics, finance, geography, history, linguistics, political science, psychology, public health, and mass communications. The second part of the book provides a panoramic view of the development of big data in the fields of computational social sciences and humanities. The following questions are addressed: why is there a need for novel data governance for this new type of data?, why is big data important for social scientists?, and how will it revolutionize the way social scientists conduct research? With the advent of the information age and technologies such as Web 2.0, ubiquitous computing, wearable devices, and the Internet of Things, digital society has fundamentally changed what we now know as "data", the very use of this data, and what we now call "knowledge". Big data has become the standard in social sciences, and has made these sciences more computational. Big Data in Computational Social Science and Humanities will appeal to graduate students and researchers working in the many subfields of the social sciences and humanities.

International audience ; The European Union has gradually developed a comprehensive body of legislation aimed at protecting the environment, consolidating its competences in this field in successive stages. Within this framework, climate change has been given a high priority and is one of the most prominent areas of the EU's external and internal policy. In a fruitful interplay, the EU has driven the evolution of the international regime and tried to influence international negotiations. In turn, the international regime has urged the Union to establish common objectives and means to tackle climate change in order to implement its international commitments. EU legislation and the international climate regime have been in constant interaction, and have evolved together. Their interactions played a major role in the shaping of the EU climate policy facing conflicting challenges of ambition, acceptability and effectiveness.

International audience ; The European Union has gradually developed a comprehensive body of legislation aimed at protecting the environment, consolidating its competences in this field in successive stages. Within this framework, climate change has been given a high priority and is one of the most prominent areas of the EU's external and internal policy. In a fruitful interplay, the EU has driven the evolution of the international regime and tried to influence international negotiations. In turn, the international regime has urged the Union to establish common objectives and means to tackle climate change in order to implement its international commitments. EU legislation and the international climate regime have been in constant interaction, and have evolved together. Their interactions played a major role in the shaping of the EU climate policy facing conflicting challenges of ambition, acceptability and effectiveness.