Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The European Convention of Human Rights system was originally created to sound the alarm if democracy was threatened in the member states. Yet, it eventually developed into a very different system with a focus on providing individual justice in an ever growing number of member states. This transformation has raised fundamental questions as to the level of difference and diversity allowed within the common European human rights space. Was the system to rest on minimum standards with room for domestic differences, or was it to create uniform standards? These questions have come up as increasingly contentious issues over the past years and have triggered a number of reforms seeking to introduce more subsidiarity in the system, striking a different balance between the European and national oversight of human rights. The article analyses this turn to subsidiarity by exploring whether the reform process has introduced new forms of difference and diversity within the common space of European human rights. Covering the period from 2000 to the end of 2019 and using a dataset of all judgments of the period, the article provides a structural analysis of developments in reference to the margin of appreciation which is the European Court of Human Rights' long-standing tool for balancing the common standards, yet leaving space for individual member states to find local solutions to implementing those standards. It concludes that recent developments have contributed to a more federal-style construction of European human rights with more space for differences within the common general standards.

Are international institutions more prone to face backlash politics than domestic ones? Are international institutions easy targets for satisfying domestic political interests? Using the case of the recent criticism of the European Court of Human Rights, the article explores whether international institutions are more susceptible to face backlash politics than domestic ones due to the dual nature of international politics. The empirical study, focusing on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights through the 2018 Copenhagen Declaration, suggests that pre-existing commitments to international institutions might be given up rapidly when significant domestic interests collide with international institutions and their practices. The analysis, however, also shows that backlash politics against international institutions is transformed when seeking institutional reform. Entering a collective bargaining process, backlash objectives are changed by the logic of diplomatic negotiation, academic scrutiny and the interests of the other member states and civil society. This suggests that the two-level logic of ordinary international politics has a mediating effect on domestically fuelled backlash campaigns.

An essay in a special journal section on 'Fields of Global Governance: How Transnational Power Elites Can Make Global Governance Intelligible'. Adapted from the source document.

Résumé L'article analyse la genèse de la Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux comme un exemple de fabrique d'un traité européen. Le processus de négociation de la Charte y est examiné à la fois comme un processus à court terme et à long terme. S'agissant du processus à court terme, l'analyse met en lumière les efforts déployés en vue d'établir un nouveau cadre de négociation sous la forme d'une Convention. En ce qui concerne la Charte dans la longue durée , l'article souligne deux structures sociales et politiques préexistantes : le champ des droits de l'homme et les pratiques établies de négociation des traités de l'Union européenne.

This special issue of International Political Sociology consists of a symposium of papers that demonstrate the possibilities applying the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu to international studies, both theoretically and empirically. The papers are all derived from a panel entitled "A Different Reading of the International" organized at the 2010 ISA Annual Conference in New Orleans. Correspondingly, the main claim of this special issue is that the sociology of Bourdieu provides a different look at the international, one that is highly productive for further transforming international studies. Our interest in developing this specific symposium has moreover been spurred by the general momentum which Bourdieusian sociology currently is experiencing with respect to both international and European studies (for references, please see the individual chapters). In this growing literature, one can now distinguish between a grouping of more sociologically informed studies and an emergent body of political science research which draws on Bourdieusian concepts. This symposium has a more sociological orientation than is usual in international studies, which is still very much dominated by political science reasoning. It also insists on the need to conduct empirical research using a specific set of thinking tools derived from Pierre Bourdieu's sociology as a means for providing a new reading of the international. Our goal is, however, not to provide a history of Bourdieusian ideas or to celebrate Pierre Bourdieu as yet another rising star in the pantheon of fashionable French thinkers for the IR market. We also resist treating Bourdieu as a philosopher cutoff from his empirical research on "examples" that seem irrelevant for IR specialists, or presenting a ready-made and condensed version of Bourdieu for an IR audience in search of minor adjustments in the division of labor between soft constructivism and mainstream realism. Adapted from the source document.

La recherche sociologique sur l'Union européenne offer une alternative indispensable aux habituelles approches de l'UE dominées par l'économie, le droit, les relations internationales et les sciences politiques. Toutefois, jusqu'à présent, cette alternative sociologique a surtout consisté en l'adaptation de la terminologie sociologique telle que « construction sociale » ou « identité » et en l'introduction de nouveaux objets de recherche, telles que les conventions sociales réglementant la sécurité nationale ou les constructions discursives de l'Europe. Mais la sociologie fournit également les munitions intellectuelles pour une réévaluation bien plus fondamentale de certaines des presuppositions ontologiques et épistémologiques de la recherche sur l'UE, ainsi que pour une reconstruction de l'objet d'étude. Dans cet article, nous allons développer ce cadre d'analyse sociologique alternatif en explorant des notions clés telles que la rationalité et la réflexivité. À notre avis, ce sont là les outils indispensables pour expliquer ce qui reste l'une des plus grandes énigmes pour les études européennes, à savoir : comment l'Europe s'est-elle formée par l'interaction des institutions européennes et des acteurs dans le jeu de Bruxelles et à travers les frontières nationales. Ces présuppositions ontologiques et épistémologiques empêchent un grand nombre de recherches fondées sur les mêmes présupposés et les dualismes qu'ils produisent (individu-institution, socialisation-calcul stratégique, supranational-national...) de développer une description plus complexe et plus « consistante » de l'intégration européenne.