Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
SSRN
In: Comparative political studies: CPS
ISSN: 1552-3829
Energy transition policies often have distributional effects that could have electoral consequences. I study this issue in the context of a Dutch policy change that increased taxes on household natural gas consumption and redistributed the revenues as subsidies for renewables. Radical right parties were the only source of political opposition. A Differences-in-Differences (DiD) analysis with panel data from 2007-2020 shows that after the policy change renters with individualized utility bills became 5–6 percentage points more likely to vote for the radical right compared to renters with utilities included in their rents. Renters with individualized utility bills also became relatively less sympathetic towards the Green party and more concerned about price increases but they did not alter their left-right self-placements nor their views on immigration or the European Union. A secondary analysis finds similar effects for individuals (including home-owners) who are energy poor. This suggests an emerging economically rooted political cleavage over energy transition policies.
SSRN
In: Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behavior, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: International studies perspectives: ISP
ISSN: 1528-3585
What does the decline in paradigmatic self-identification mean for how international relations (IR) scholars think about the world? We answer this question with a 2020 survey among nearly two thousand IR scholars. We uncover a two-dimensional latent theoretical belief space based on scholarly agreement with conjectures about the state, ideas, international institutions, domestic politics, globalization, and racism. The first dimension separates status quo–oriented scholars from more critical scholars. The second dimension captures the realist–institutionalist divide. We have three key findings. First, non-paradigmatic scholars vary greatly in their theoretical beliefs. Second, measurement invariance tests show that there is a similar structure underlying the beliefs of paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic scholars. Third, we find no evidence that non-paradigmatic scholars rely less on their theoretical beliefs in making predictions about conflict, institutions, political economy, democracy, and human rights. Instead, the positions of scholars in the two-dimensional theoretical belief space rather than self-assigned paradigmatic labels correlate with predictions about the world. Our findings suggest that non-paradigmatic scholars are not so different from self-identified Liberals, Constructivists, and Realists, although the decline of paradigmatic self-identification may still matter for how scholars organize debates and disciplinary divides.
World Affairs Online
SSRN
In: International studies review, Band 24, Heft 2
ISSN: 1468-2486
AbstractMany of the most visible examples of the backlash against multilateralism, globalization, and democracy do not target free trade, investment, or elections directly, but the judicial institutions that were created to protect the rights of traders, investors, and citizens. Is the backlash against globalization and democracy really a backlash against the growing ideological convergence on rule of law principles as appropriate standards for both international and domestic governance? This essay suggests that this might be so by highlighting that the rule of law does not just constrain the powerful, but also majoritarian politics. A new domestic ideological cleavage permeates many liberal democracies that is in part about liberal conceptions of justice. An illustrative empirical analysis shows that illiberal views about justice are negatively and significantly correlated with trust in European institutions.
In: International studies perspectives: ISP, Band 24, Heft 3, S. 308-335
ISSN: 1528-3585
Abstract
What does the decline in paradigmatic self-identification mean for how international relations (IR) scholars think about the world? We answer this question with a 2020 survey among nearly two thousand IR scholars. We uncover a two-dimensional latent theoretical belief space based on scholarly agreement with conjectures about the state, ideas, international institutions, domestic politics, globalization, and racism. The first dimension separates status quo–oriented scholars from more critical scholars. The second dimension captures the realist–institutionalist divide. We have three key findings. First, non-paradigmatic scholars vary greatly in their theoretical beliefs. Second, measurement invariance tests show that there is a similar structure underlying the beliefs of paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic scholars. Third, we find no evidence that non-paradigmatic scholars rely less on their theoretical beliefs in making predictions about conflict, institutions, political economy, democracy, and human rights. Instead, the positions of scholars in the two-dimensional theoretical belief space rather than self-assigned paradigmatic labels correlate with predictions about the world. Our findings suggest that non-paradigmatic scholars are not so different from self-identified Liberals, Constructivists, and Realists, although the decline of paradigmatic self-identification may still matter for how scholars organize debates and disciplinary divides.
"Can international institutions help create more cooperative and peaceful relations between states? If so, how? And what motivates states to create meaningful institutions in the first place? Though theorists and researchers have approached these questions from different schools of thought, the commonality among them is that institutions are apolitical and their purpose is to assure common gains or develop shared social norms and identities. Institutions succeed if they rise above petty power politics and fail when they succumb to political confrontations. In this book, Erik Voeten offers a new broader understanding of international institutions. Current theories offer conflicting portraits of why IOs form, why the succeed (or not) and their role in current politics. While international institutions can enhance the welfare of participants, they are simultaneously the structural means through which actors try to get what they want, often at the expense of others. Voeten argues that these distributive politics shape institutions and, in turn, institutions shape the conduct of such politics. The book will largely be theoretical, as its purpose is to illustrate an alternative way of understanding institutions rather than to test a specific hypothesis. After developing what the distributive theory of international institutions is, Voeten examines how this theory bears on other understandings of international institutions on a variety of scholarly perspectives, drawing on the extensive work in this area"--
In: Beyond Fragmentation: Cross-Fertilization, Cooperation, and Competition among International Courts, Chiara Giorgetti and Mark Pollack (editors), Cambridge University Press (Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: European journal of international law, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 907-914
ISSN: 1464-3596
Abstract
Over the last decade, scholars have debated whether the shifting landscape of individual rights protection in Europe has influenced the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In our article, 'Walking Back Human Rights in Europe?', we analysed every minority opinion of the ECtHR Grand Chamber between 1998 and 2018. We found a substantial increase in what we labelled as 'walking back dissents' – minority opinions asserting that the Grand Chamber has overturned prior case law or settled doctrine in a way that favours the government. In their Reply, Stone Sweet, Sandholtz and Andenas (SSA) offer two principal critiques. First, they assert that they could not 'replicate' our coding. Second, SSA challenge our claim that legal and political developments in Europe have incentivized the ECtHR to move in a rights-restrictive direction. These claims are inaccurate and mischaracterize our article. First, SSA do not 'replicate' our study. Instead, they code a very small subset of judgments using more restrictive, subjective and vague criteria – which, unsurprisingly, yield fewer walking back dissents. Second, SSA narrowly focus on the Brighton and Copenhagen conferences, ignoring numerous other changes at the national and regional level that have created a more constrained environment for the ECtHR.
In: Madsen, Mikael and Mayoral, Juan A. and Strezhnev, Anton and Voeten, Erik, Sovereignty, Substance, and Public Support for European Courts' Human Rights Rulings, American Political Science Review (forthcoming)
SSRN
Working paper
In: International organization, Band 75, Heft 2, S. iii-iv
ISSN: 1531-5088
In: American political science review, Band 116, Heft 2, S. 419-438
ISSN: 1537-5943
Is the public backlash against human rights rulings from European courts driven by substantive concerns over case outcomes, procedural concerns over sovereignty, or combinations thereof? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Denmark, France, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom using three vignettes: a foreigner who faces extradition, a person fighting a fine for burning Qurans, and a home owner contesting eviction. Each vignette varies with respect to whether a European court disagrees with a national court (deference treatment) and whether an applicant wins a case (outcome treatment). We find little evidence that deference moves willingness to implement judgments or acceptance of court authority but ample evidence that case outcomes matter. Even nationalists and authoritarians are unmoved by European court decisions as long as they agree with the case outcome. These findings imply that nationalist opposition to European courts is more about content than the location of authority and that backlash to domestic and international courts may be driven by similar forces.
In: Journal of European public policy, Band 28, Heft 9, S. 1453-1473
ISSN: 1466-4429