Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe article analyses the interface of Denmark and internationalisation of human rights with the goal of examining the transformation of the place and perception of international law in Scandinavia over the last decades. More precisely, the article contrasts two fundamentally different moments of the interface of international human rights and Denmark: first a period of external engagement in which Denmark – and the other Scandinavian countries – developed their position as virtuous defenders of international law and human rights and, secondly, the eventual national implications of international human rights law. This approach allows us to more generally analyse the interrelationship between the internationalisation of human rights and its eventual effect on Danish legal and political practices. We generally argue that the original politics of virtue in the area of international law and particularly international human rights law declined when international human rights started having national implications, that is, it no longer was simply a good of export. We, moreover, argue that the realistic approach developed in the national context now is having significant spill-over effects on Denmark's international policies in the area.

"Mainstream legal scholarship on the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU) has long been dominated by meta-narratives and grand theories to explain European legal integration as a necessary, if not self-evident, process toward ever greater integration. The directional pull of these functional narratives, whether termed as Europeanization, federalization, or constitutionalization, is one towards an ever-closer Union, thereby replicating the original teleology of the Rome Treaty (1957). Although there are theoretical differences among these explanations, notably between intergovernmental and neo-functionalist narratives, most scholars agree that one particular institutional actor has played an outsized role: the European Court of Justice (ECJ), now the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) since the Lisbon Treaty (2009) that includes the Court of Justice, the General Court. For the same reasons, the CJEU has become a coveted object of inquiry for studies of European integration and governance. We have for years learned about its role in constitutionalizing Europe, establishing the supremacy of European law, creating a system of supranational governance, and the new types of litigation and mobilization spurred by the ECJ"--

'International Court Authority' challenges fundamental preconceptions about when, why, and how international courts become important and authoritative actors in national, regional and international politics. Examining global and regional bodies, this volume investigates how political and social contexts shape the authority of international courts.

Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.

Fields of Global Governance: How Transnational Power Elites Can Make Global Governance Intelligible (pages 324-330) Niilo Kauppi and Mikael R. Madsen. - Knowledge Warfare: Social Scientists as Operators of Global Governance (pages 330-332) Niilo Kauppi. - The International Judiciary as Transnational Power Elite (pages 332-334) Mikael R. Madsen. - Identity Switching and Transnational Professionals (pages 335-337) Leonard Seabrooke. - The International Civil Servant (pages 338-340) Ole Jacob Sending. - Power Elites and Club-Model Governance in Global Finance (pages 340-342) Eleni Tsingou

Armut, Entwicklung, Terrorismus und Behinderung - alles wird in einen menschenrechtlichen Bezugsrahmen gestellt. Seit wann sind Menschenrechte zu einem globalen Leitwert avanciert und weshalb? Der erste soziologische Band zu Menschenrechten im deutschsprachigen Raum geht dieser Frage aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven nach: Er vermittelt einerseits einen Überblick über wichtige theoretische Ansätze wie dem Neo-Institutionalismus, der Systemtheorie und Hans Joas' Genealogie der Menschenrechte. Anderseits versammelt er empirische Fallstudien etwa zu Indigenenrechten, der Entstehung der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte, zu den Arbeitsrechten der ILO und den Rechtsverletzungen in extraterritorialen Räumen am Beispiel der Hohen See.

Die Reihe Studien zur Weltgesellschaft bietet ein Forum für die im deutschen Sprachraum bisher verstreut veröffentlichten Beiträge zur soziologischen Globalisierungs- und Weltgesellschaftsforschung. Sie knüpft an etablierte Programme an, wie die neo-institutionalistische World-Polity-Forschung und die systemtheoretische Soziologie der Weltgesellschaft, und zielt zugleich auf die kritische Auseinandersetzung mit allen sozialund geschichtswissenschaftlichen Forschungsprogrammen, die theoriebewusst globale Strukturen und Dynamiken analysieren. Studien zu globalen Institutionen und Diffusionsprozessen finden daher ebenso Eingang wie Untersuchungen zu transnationalen Bewegungen und Netzwerken sowie historische Fallstudien zu Kolonialismus, Imperialismus und der Entstehung moderner Nationalstaaten.