Suchergebnisse

Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Abbreviationes -- List of Contributors -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction: Sustainability Politics and Limited Statehood. Contesting New Modes of Governance -- Contextualizing Sustainability Politics -- Contesting New Modes of Governance -- Areas of Limited Statehood -- Structure of the Book -- Notes -- References -- Part 1: New Modes of Governance at the Transnational Level -- Chapter 2: "A Comment That Might Help Us to Move Along": Brokers in Negotiation Systems -- Introduction -- New Modes of Governance and the Role of Brokers

Abstract
Global governance institutions emerge around problems ranging from climate change to cybersecurity. Expert knowledge is instrumental in defining these problems, developing corresponding solutions, and thereby structuring international order. But in the process of problem construction, claims to expertise are competing, often contingent, and increasingly rely on graphs and models, black-boxing normative assumptions of knowledge production. Thus, international relations (IR) requires an approach that engages with the political dynamics of knowledge production happening within and beyond the spheres of traditional politics. This special forum on objects of expertise offers such an approach, and this introductory article lays out the overarching framework. It conceptualizes objects of expertise as authoritative knowledge relevant for governing put into a socio-material form. First, understanding expertise in terms of authoritative knowledge points to the contested attempts at rendering knowledge authoritative in a specific sphere; expertise is a relational category of (contested) group belonging. Second, knowledge becomes expertise when it is made authoritative in relation to a problem relevant for governing. Finally, expertise gains objectual character when it is put into a delineable socio-material entity in which it assumes a recognizable, specific form. This form grants objects of expertise a certain level of credibility and stability, allowing them to function as trusted sources of information and guidance.

A growing number of expert organizations aim to provide knowledge for global environmental policy-making. Recently, there have also been explicit calls for stakeholder engagement at the global level to make scientific knowledge relevant and usable on the ground. The newly established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is one of the first international expert organizations to have systematically developed a strategy for stakeholder engagement in its own right. In this article, we analyze the emergence of this strategy. Employing the concept "politics of legitimation," we examine how and for what reasons stakeholder engagement was introduced, justified, and finally endorsed, as well as its effects. The article explores the process of institutionalizing stakeholder engagement, as well as reconstructing the contestation of the operative norms (membership, tasks, and accountability) regulating the rules for this engagement. We conclude by discussing the broader importance of the findings for IPBES, as well as for international expert organizations in general.

A growing number of expert organizations aim to provide knowledge for global environmental policy-making. Recently, there have also been explicit calls for stakeholder engagement at the global level to make scientific knowledge relevant and usable on the ground. The newly established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is one of the first international expert organizations to have systematically developed a strategy for stakeholder engagement in its own right. In this article, we analyze the emergence of this strategy. Employing the concept "politics of legitimation," we examine how and for what reasons stakeholder engagement was introduced, justified, and finally endorsed, as well as its effects. The article explores the process of institutionalizing stakeholder engagement, as well as reconstructing the contestation of the operative norms (membership, tasks, and accountability) regulating the rules for this engagement. We conclude by discussing the broader importance of the findings for IPBES, as well as for international expert organizations in general. ; Science Role in International Environmental Governance

Introduction : the objects of translation / Tobias Berger and Alejandro Esguerra -- Good treason : following actor-network theory to the realm of drug policy / Endre Dányi -- The travelling concept of organized crime and the stabilization of ssecuritized international cooperation : a translational reading / Holger Stritzel -- Translating the glucometer : from "western" markets to Uganda : of glucometer graveyards, missing testing strips and the difficulties of patient care / Arlena S. Liggins and Uli Beisel -- Rule of law promotion in translation : technologies of normative knowledge transfer in South Sudan's constitution making / Katrin Seidel -- What is wrong with the United Nations? : cynicism and the problem of translating the facts / Sebastian Schindler -- Reflexivity, positionality and normativity in the ethnography of policy translation / Farhad Mukhtarov -- Europe in translation : governance, integration, and the project / Richard Freeman -- Translation and the challenges of supranational integration : the common grammar and its dissent / Noemi Lendvai-Bainton -- Faithful translation? : shifting the boundaries of the religious and the secular in the global climate change debate / Katharina Glaab -- Translating for politico-epistemic authority : comparing food safety agencies in Germany and in the UK / Rebecca-Lea Korinek -- Conclusion : power, relationality, and difference / Tobias Berger and Alejandro Esguerra

AbstractThis forum seeks to honor the contributions of a scholar who has greatly influenced international relations (IR) scholarship on transnational relations and constructivist research: Thomas Risse. Best known for his pathbreaking studies on the importance of transnational actors, the power of international norms and ideas in international relations, and the influence of domestic structures on international interactions, his work has significantly contributed to several interrelated research agendas within IR. The forum takes a fresh look at some of his contributions, focusing on assumptions about the nature of non-state actors, the content of human rights, and the evolution of knowledge that underpin his work. Interrogating especially some of the liberal assumptions that have informed these lines of research, we ask: are we still dealing with the same kinds of non-state actors that Thomas Risse and early constructivist research have analyzed? How has the nature of these actors changed, and how has this affected the processes and mechanisms by which they shape transnational politics? To what extent do these changes require different research methodologies? And, finally, which directions for future research on non-state actors, human rights, and constructivism emerge from these discussions?

The role and design of global expert organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) needs rethinking. Acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all model does not exist, we suggest a reflexive turn that implies treating the governance of expertise as a matter of political contestation.