Suchergebnisse

On October 1st and 2nd 2021, the workshop "Critical Life Sciences – Responsibilities, Reflections, and the Political under Conditions of 'Post-Truth'" took place at the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS). The joint event was hosted by Laura Schnieder, Tino Plümecke, Veronika Lipphardt, and Anelis Kaiser Trujillo (all University of...

Last month, the Indian parliament passed the 106th amendment to the Constitution. It inserted several provisions to the Indian Constitution, collectively providing for horizontal reservation of one-third of directly elected seats of the House of the People, the state legislative assemblies, and the Delhi legislative assembly for women. In this blog, I discuss the political motivations underlying the enactment of this amendment and argue that this amendment is an opportunistic attempt by the incumbent government to reap partisan benefits using the Constitution before the upcoming state and general elections. Such actions demystify the idea that constitutions are a place for high-order politics. The amendment shows that with enough numbers, constitutions could easily be reduced into a political tool for furthering dominant political interests.

In a landmark ruling in mid-February, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government to stop exporting parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II to Israel, citing the risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law if the F-35 were used for airstrikes in Gaza. Although it seems unlikely that the court order will have any significant impact on Israeli air operations, it raises a number of legal and political challenges to the global F-35 program, the U.S. Department of Defense's most ambitious and most expensive weapons program to date.
Author information





Frank Kuhn



Frank Kuhn ist Projektkoordinator des Clusters Natur- und Technikwissenschaftliche Rüstungskontrollforschung (CNTR) am PRIF. Zu seinen Forschungsinteressen zählen nukleare Abschreckung, Rüstungskontrolle und Nichtverbreitung sowie Militärtechnologien und -strategien. // Frank Kuhn is the project coordinator for the Cluster for Natural and Technical Science Arms Control Research (CNTR) at PRIF. His research interests include nuclear deterrence, arms control and non-proliferation, as well as military technology and strategy. | Twitter: @_FrankKuhn

|



Der Beitrag Court Orders Dutch Government to halt the Export of F-35 Parts to Israel: Implications for the War in Gaza and Beyond erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Disruptive environmental protest has become a hugely controversial issue in the UK, both politically and legally. It is likely to be a wedge issue in the upcoming General Election. Both major political parties are talking tough on the issue, and the government has instituted draconian new laws. The courts, for their part, are permitting ever more 'Mega Persons Unknown injunctions' and imposing increasingly longer prison terms for peaceful – but disruptive – protests. Part of this is an international trend, caused by the indisputable evidence of global warming and the increasingly activist environmental movement. But from a UK practitioner's perspective, it is deeply worrying that there are now a large number of peaceful protesters in the prison system, or facing huge bills for legal costs, or both.

The course Quantitative Methods introduces graduate students to quantitative methods in political science research. In this blogpost, we describe a variety of innovative approaches that we used to address the unique challenges of online teaching in the times of the COVID-19 Pandemic. This includes the use of diverse teaching formats, an online support infrastructure, a variety of approaches to facilitate academic and social interactions both in and outside the virtual classroom, and a rigorous commitment to open science practices.

Recently, Baptiste Charvin wrote on this blog that the right to abortion has become the subject of political instrumentalization in France. In his view, it illustrates a general phenomenon of 'constitutional desacralization' and underlines the division the French people are experiencing, 'despite being governed by a Constitution that enshrines a set of values that should be shared by all.' I argue that the French parliamentary debate on the right to abortion is anything but a phenomenon of recent political opportunism. Instead, it reflects – for once – a majority opinion, not the division of French society.

The sigh of relief was audible throughout Europe. In Brussels and other European capitals, the victory of the opposition bloc in the Polish elections sparked hope that the imminent change in government would end the illiberal course of the past. While years of democratic backsliding have left lasting marks on Poland's political and legal landscape, the newly elected government is clearly committed to leading Poland back onto the path of democracy and the rule of law. However, one pertinent institutional issue remains to be resolved: the still pending procedure against Poland under Art 7 TEU.

In January 2023, Italy's new government adopted a reform that heavily curtailed immigrant rights to speed up return procedures. Between September and October, several judgments issued by the Catania Tribunal declared the reform in violation of EU law. The judgments led to backlash, with PM Meloni and other members of the government accusing them of being politically motivated. While such political attacks on judges must always be condemned, they are particularly unwarranted given that the Catania Tribunal's judges were correct in finding the new Italian border procedures incompatible with EU law.

On 23 and 24 June, armed columns of the Wagner Group made their way from occupied Ukrainian territory toward Moscow, passing through Rostov and Voronezh. The declared goal of these Russian mercenaries under the leadership of oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin was to depose Russian Minister of Defense Sergei K. Shoigu and Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery V. Gerasimov. Prigozhin accused both of having betrayed Russia in its war against Ukraine.
Author information





Jonas J. Driedger



Dr. Jonas J. Driedger ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter im Programmbereich "Internationale Sicherheit" an der HSFK sowie am Forschungszentrum Transformations of Political Violence (TraCe). Er forscht zu zwischenstaatlichen Kriegen, Abschreckung in den internationalen Beziehungen, Beziehungen zwischen Großmächten und ihren Nachbarstaaten sowie russischer und transatlantischer Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. // Dr Jonas J. Driedger is a Researcher at the Research Department "International Security" at PRIF and at the Research Center Transformations of Political Violence (TraCe). His research focuses on interstate wars, deterrence in international politics, relations between great powers and their neighboring states as well as Russian and transatlantic security and defense policy.

|



Der Beitrag What’s the Long-Term Significance of Wagner’s March to Moscow? erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

The ways in which foreign interference by China, Russia and others are currently discussed in Brussels indicate that the EU is considering moving away from liberal principles in the area of international civil society support and the foreign funding of NGOs in particular. Based on a co-authored comment in the Heidelberg Journal of International Law, this blog post argues that it is helpful to read the current EU debate on foreign interference in the light of the ongoing, conflict-ridden transformation of the global order.
Author information





Jonas Wolff



Prof. Dr. Jonas Wolff ist Vorstandsmitglied und Leiter des Programmbereichs "Innerstaatliche Konflikte" am PRIF und Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt. Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Demokratie und politischer Wandel, soziale Proteste und Konfliktdynamiken sowie außen- und entwicklungspolitische Fragen. Sein regionaler Schwerpunkt ist Lateinamerika. // Prof. Dr Jonas Wolff is Member of the Executive Board and Head of the Research Department "Intrastate Conflict" at PRIF and professor of political science at the Goethe-University Frankfurt. His research focuses on democracy and political change, social protests and conflict dynamics, and foreign and development policy issues. His regional focus is Latin America.

|



Der Beitrag Debating Foreign Interference in a Multipolar World: Is the EU Becoming Illiberal? erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Wie über die Gewalteskalation in Israel, dem Gazastreifen und angrenzenden Gebieten der Region in Deutschland gesprochen wird, ist in vielerlei Hinsicht nicht überraschend, sondern folgt der strukturellen Dynamik von Kriegsdiskursen: die Polarisierung in ein Freund-Feind-Schema; das Negieren moralischer Ambivalenz; das Rechtfertigungsmuster, wonach die Akte der einen Seite durch vorherige Akte der anderen Seite mehr als gedeckt seien; der Zwang der Bedrohungslage, die Reflexion und Distanzierung als unangemessen diskreditiert; die Konstruktion beispielloser Amoralität; die Aushebelung humaner Standards durch Entmenschlichung des Feindes; die Vereindeutigung einer unauflösbar komplexen Lage.
Author information





Hanna Pfeifer



Prof. Dr. Hanna Pfeifer ist Professorin für Politikwissenschaft mit dem Schwerpunkt Radikalisierungs- und Gewaltforschung in Kooperation mit der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt und Leiterin der Forschungsgruppe "Terrorismus" an der HSFK. Sie forscht u.a. zu staatlichen und nicht-staatlichen Gewaltformen und –akteuren in der MENA-Region. // Prof. Dr Hanna Pfeifer is Professor of Political Science with a Focus on Radicalisation and Violence Research at PRIF and Goethe University Frankfurt, as well as head of PRIF's research group "Terrorism". Her research interests include, inter alia, state and non-state violence and actors in the MENA region. | Twitter: @hanna_pfeifer

| Twitter |



Der Beitrag Israel – Gaza: Ein deutscher Kriegsdiskurs erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.

Supreme or constitutional courts regularly step in to protect the democratic process by deciding election disputes. It is remarkable that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has so far barely been engaged concerning the European Parliament (EP) elections. Using Hungary as an example, I will argue in the following that the CJEU is institutionally well-positioned to help protect the integrity of the 2024 EP elections via preliminary ruling procedures. Hungarian democracy has been in decline, according to the EP, the Commission and various democracy indices. The problems include the lack of a level playing field, targeted action by authorities against opposition parties, overlaps between the activities of the government and the governing party, state funding of campaigning and party financing in general, lack of media pluralism, and the different means of voting for citizens living abroad (postal vote for some and not for others). I argue that the CJEU could and should be engaged to protect the fairness of the EP elections in Hungary.

By now it has become clear that Poland is not willing to discharge the definitive judicial penalties of over EUR 600 million which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ordered it to pay for failing to observe coercive interim measures. When the Commission announced it would proceed to set off the outstanding amounts against money due to Poland from the EU budget, the Polish government vowed to fight the recovery 'with all legal means'. Recently, Poland has put its money where its mouth is. It has brought four cases before the General Court to challenge the recovery. These actions have thus far evaded closer scrutiny in the legal blogosphere. However, they contain a significant challenge to the EU's powers to enforce judicial penalties against Member States, namely as regards recovery by offsetting. As the cases raise issues which may have repercussions beyond these proceedings, this post casts a closer look at Poland's applications and analyses their potential broader significance.

Over the last ten years, PiS has not only systematically dismantled Poland's rule of law, but also strategically corroded the country's media freedom. It has successfully politicized Poland's media regulators, abused public service media for propaganda purposes, captured private media outlets and supported friendly private media, and created regulatory, legal and political obstacles for private media which criticized it. In this blogpost, I will detail three core steps that must be taken to restore media freedom in Poland in conformity with European standards. In particular, I argue for the restoration of the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), the constitutional media regulator, as an independent body; the dissolution of the "bonus" media regulator introduced by PiS, the National Media Council; and for reforming the status of Poland's private media and the government's approach to the media in general.

Deutsche Debatten über den Israel-Gaza-Krieg verfangen sich oft in polarisierenden Begrifflichkeiten. Das gilt insbesondere für den Streit um das Vorliegen eines Genozids. Abgesehen von der juristischen Einschätzung, die derzeit der Internationale Gerichtshof vornimmt, lenkt eine parallellaufende, polemische Diskussion um den Völkermordsbegriff von den eigentlichen Handlungsprioritäten ab. Der Krieg kostete schon Zehntausende das Leben, noch viel mehr Palästinenser:innen werden an direkten und indirekten Kriegsfolgen sterben. Die Massengewalt gegen Zivilist:innen und der Entzug von Lebensgrundlagen in Gaza müssen sofort beendet werden – unabhängig davon, ob juristisch die Bedingungen für einen Genozid erfüllt sind.
Author information





Hanna Pfeifer



Prof. Dr. Hanna Pfeifer ist Professorin für Politikwissenschaft mit dem Schwerpunkt Radikalisierungs- und Gewaltforschung in Kooperation mit der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt und Leiterin der Forschungsgruppe "Terrorismus" am PRIF. Sie forscht u.a. zu staatlichen und nicht-staatlichen Gewaltformen und –akteuren in der MENA-Region. // Prof. Dr Hanna Pfeifer is Professor of Political Science with a Focus on Radicalisation and Violence Research at PRIF and Goethe University Frankfurt, as well as head of PRIF's research group "Terrorism". Her research interests include, inter alia, state and non-state violence and actors in the MENA region. | Twitter: @hanna_pfeifer

| Twitter |



Der Beitrag Israel-Gaza jenseits des Genozid-Begriffs: Massengewalt gegen Zivilist*innen jetzt beenden erschien zuerst auf PRIF BLOG.