Suchergebnisse

AbstractTwo typical features of new modes of governance (NMG) are of particular concern: (1) the delegation of regulatory activities to independent regulatory authorities at the national and the European level; and (2) regulatory networks outside the legislative arenas, with both private and public actors. These features tend to make the NMG less democratically accountable. Yet some hold that NMG can confer legitimacy on the European Union, especially because they secure 'output' more effectively than democratic arrangements, even though they lack any 'input' from voters. This article challenges these normative claims: the alleged benefits of NMG may be less than often claimed, while democratic accountability measures are less of a challenge to effectiveness and credibility, properly conceived.

The impact of Rawls's work in the Nordic countries has been wider than expected. The first section identifies some legal, political, and cultural features that would lead us to expect little interest in Rawls's work: Scandinavian legal realism, the social democratic welfare state regimes, and pervasive ethnic and cultural homogeneity. The second section gives an overview of the reception of Rawls's work, both in the academy and in public fora, on the basis of extensive but not exhaustive searches. The third section offers some conclusions and speculates that Rawlsian contributions - and political philosophy in general - will increase, largely due to Europeanization. Appendix 1 provides bibliographical information about first translations and presentations of Rawls's work starting with the 1955 article `Two Concepts of Rules'. Appendix 2 lists appeals to Rawls's work in the academy and the public sphere, ranging from the substantive principles of Justice as Fairness stated in 1971 through the Law of Peoples (1999). Neither appendix claims to give exhaustive accounts.

This article deals with one of the most basic issues pertaining to peace and conflict studies, namely, the need to secure stability and trust within and between nations. This is not least a challenge in Europe after a century which saw two world wars springing from unrest on the European continent. The article takes as its point of departure the claim that the challenges facing the European Union will require extensive and mutual trust to ensure compliance. Some have argued that a shared European-wide national identity is necessary to ensure such stability of practices and institutions. The philosopher David Miller is pessimistic about the prospects of European-wide nationalism of the appropriate sort. The present article provides an in-depth and critical discussion of Miller's argument, and concludes that Miller's defence of nationalism as the unique source of trust is unconvincing. Moreover, Miller's pessimism regarding the European Union is premature, if relevant at all. Alternative grounds for supporting common institutions are available, and may be within reach for the European Union. The shared bases among citizens need not include a broad range of values and cultural belonging, but might plausibly be restricted to Just Patriotism of the kind suggested in the Liberal Contractualist tradition.