Search results

Das vorliegende Buch befasst sich mit einer der derzeit sicher spannendsten Baustellen der Politikwissenschaft, nämlich dem Herauslösen des Regierens aus den traditionell dafür vorgesehen Institutionen sowohl innerhalb als auch jenseits des Staates. Andreas Klinke stellt sich der doppelten Aufgabe, sowohl ein Verständnis der neuen horizontal-dialogischen politischen Steuerungsmuster als auch ein angemessenes Modell deliberativer Politik zu gewinnen. Vor dem Hintergrund dieses demokratietheoretischen Modells wird der tatsächliche Bestand deliberativer Politik im Grosse Seen-Regime der USA und Kanada beurteilt.

An emerging task in world politics is to cope with human-induced global risks in domains such as environment, economy, security, and health. Current global governance institutions are largely incapable of tackling global risks and applying deductive policy models, which is why new modes of interaction may become essential. In this article I argue that through focused discourses, key peculiarities of global risks, namely complexity, scientific uncertainty and sociopolitical ambiguity, may be identified and understood. To this end, distinctively discursive and pragmatic learning processes can be developed. Different forms of deliberation and participation help develop processes that meet the challenges, problems, and conflicts that result from the key peculiarities of global risks. Hence, the article establishes a causal link between key peculiarities of global risks and postnational discourses. I discuss the varying forms of deliberation and participation (epistemic institutions, associational policy making, and transnational public deliberation and participation) of three discourses that produce institutional problem solving capacity in global risk governance. To this end, this article links theory and practice as well as normative conceptualisation and institutional feasibility. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractAn emerging task in world politics is to cope with human-induced global risks in domains such as environment, economy, security, and health. Current global governance institutions are largely incapable of tackling global risks and applying deductive policy models, which is why new modes of interaction may become essential. In this article I argue that through focused discourses, key peculiarities of global risks, namely complexity, scientific uncertainty and sociopolitical ambiguity, may be identified and understood. To this end, distinctively discursive and pragmatic learning processes can be developed. Different forms of deliberation and participation help develop processes that meet the challenges, problems, and conflicts that result from the key peculiarities of global risks. Hence, the article establishes a causal link between key peculiarities of global risks and postnational discourses. I discuss the varying forms of deliberation and participation (epistemic institutions, associational policy making, and transnational public deliberation and participation) of three discourses that produce institutional problem solving capacity in global risk governance. To this end, this article links theory and practice as well as normative conceptualisation and institutional feasibility.

Over the last two decades, transboundary regional environmental governance has witnessed some institutional change through an increasing shift from intergovernmentally constituted political institutions to new complex structures of decision-making where policy-making has begun to adapt to a new, more active role of societal actors at multiple levels of political authority. In addressing this issue, the article raises the following questions: How can new structures and processes of public deliberation and participation in transboundary regional environmental governance be designed, and which opportunities and risks emerge? To address these questions, the article develops a normative-analytical design for regional environmental governance in ecoregions; this design defines the conditions under which public deliberation and participation conveying discourse, argument, and persuasion can help to democratize collective decision-making.

AbstractProposed as an advanced conceptualization of how to handle risk, risk governance begins with the critique and expansion of the traditional idea and standard practices of risk analysis. In developments over the last two decades, proponents of a more integrative approach on governing risks have moved further away from distinct conceptions of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication and toward the processes and institutions that guide, restrain, and integrate collective activities of handling risk. In early formulations of what risk governance entails, the superiority of the interplay between risk evaluation and risk management over linear and simple deductions from risk assessment to risk management was established precisely by developing a distinctive rationality of how to proceed. Later, the International Risk Governance Council recaptured this distinctive rationality that institutionalized processes should embody the interplay of the assessment of risks and related concerns, their sociopolitical appraisal, and the logical inference for risk management. Recently, this approach has been refined and augmented toward an integrative and adaptive concept of risk governance and toward a postnormal conception of risk governance. Main characteristics are a new concept of differentiated responsibility and deliberation in which expertise, experience, and tacit knowledge are integrated, forming the core of legitimate political risk decision making.