Suchergebnisse

This book offers a major new theory of global governance, explaining both its rise and what many see as its current crisis. The author suggests that world politics is now embedded in a normative and institutional structure dominated by hierarchies and power inequalities and therefore inherently creates contestation, resistance, and distributional struggles. Within an ambitious and systematic new conceptual framework, the theory makes four key contributions. Firstly, it reconstructs global governance as a political system which builds on normative principles and reflexive authorities. Second, it identifies the central legitimation problems of the global governance system with a constitutionalist setting in mind. Third, it explains the rise of state and societal contestation by identifying key endogenous dynamics and probing the causal mechanisms that produced them. Finally, it identifies the conditions under which struggles in the global governance system lead to decline or deepening.00Rich with propositions, insights, and evidence, the book promises to be the most important and comprehensive theoretical argument about world politics of the 21st century

AbstractThis response to my critics discusses four claims that are central forA Theory of Global Governance. The first claim is that observing a high level of conflict and contestation in world politics is not proof of the unimportance of global governance, since many of the current conflicts and contestations are about international institutions. The second claim is that the 1990s saw a rise of trans- and international authority beyond the nation-state that is essential for the rise of a global political system. Third, a global system of loosely coupled spheres of authority relies on 'critical deference' (reflexive authority) but also contains numerous elements of coercion. And fourth, a technocratic legitimation of intrusive international authorities cannot build on emotions or a sense of belonging. This deficit creates a political opportunity structure that allows for the rise of a myriad of dissenters. The relative importance of them depends on the availability of resources for mobilization and not on the quality of reasons for resistance.

One of the most important features of the multi-level governance research programme is the parallel conceptualisation of the vertical and the horizontal relationships within multi-level governance systems. Different systems of multi-level governance are characterised by the relationships between political institutions on the same level (Are there many task-specific organisations?) and by the relationship between different levels (On which level do we see political communities?). By conceptualising scale and community in a substitutive way as Hooghe and Marks in tendency do, some of the potentials are lost. I put forward the suggestion that treating the two dimensions as independent would allow for an even fuller picture of the dynamics of politics in multi-level governance systems.

AbstractThe omnipresence of radical uncertainty asks for a concept of causality that moves beyond the notion of predicted probabilities. Protean power is a most important contribution to move International Relations research in this direction. Yet, some of the key components need further grounding in existing concepts and debates. First, protean power should include the notion of directionality in order to be power. Second, it should allow for an analysis of the different forms of relation between protean power and different types of uncertainties. And it should focus on features of the power relationship instead of the context in which it takes place to be able to transfer it to contexts other than uncertainty.

Der Artikel trägt zur Diskussion bei, die Floris Biskamp, Michael Hartmann und Carsten Nickel angestoßen haben. In einem ersten Schritt begründe ich die Wahl der Begriffe Kommunitarismus und Kosmopolitismus zur Kennzeichnung der neuen gesellschaftlichen Konfliktlinie. Der entscheidende Punkt ist dabei, dass die neue Konfliktlinie nicht, wie alle bisherigen »cleavages« der Moderne, innerhalb des Gehäuses nationaler Gesellschaften auftritt, sondern es genau um die Grenzen zwischen den Gesellschaften geht. Im zweiten Schritt möchte ich die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von sozio-kulturellen und sozio-ökonomischen Determinanten der neuen Konfliktlinie thematisieren. Dabei ist zum einen mit Hartmann zu unterstreichen, wie eng die entsprechenden Dimensionen zusammenhängen. Zum anderen sollte aber auch die sozio-politische Dimension nicht aus dem Auge verloren werden. Dies führt zum dritten Punkt. Die Suche nach einer Lösung des sozialdemokratischen Dilemmas muss aus dem Käfig der Suche nach den richtigen nationalen Politiken heraustreten. In einer denationalisierten Welt sind nämlich zum einen sozialintegrative Politiken auf der nationalen Ebene immer zugleich exkludierend, und zum anderen geht es nicht nur um die Wahl der richtigen policy, sondern auch um die der richtigen politischen Ebene (der richtigen polity). Das birgt ein sozialdemokratisches Dilemma, das eigentlich nur überwunden werden kann, wenn ein internationaler Rahmen angestrebt wird, der sozialintegrative Politiken möglich macht. Die moderne Sozialdemokratie muss also aus dem Container (Ulrich Beck) nationalstaatlicher Politik heraustreten.

One of the most important features of the multi-level governance research programme is the parallel conceptualisation of the vertical and the horizontal relationships within multi-level governance systems. Different systems of multi-level governance are characterised by the relationships between political institutions on the same level (Are there many task-specific organisations?) and by the relationship between different levels (On which level do we see political communities?). By conceptualising scale and community in a substitutive way as Hooghe and Marks in tendency do, some of the potentials are lost. I put forward the suggestion that treating the two dimensions as independent would allow for an even fuller picture of the dynamics of politics in multi-level governance systems.

Ob die Corona-Krise eine historische Zäsur für unsere Weltordnung bedeutet, muss sich erst noch zeigen.

One of the most important features of the multi-level governance research programme is the parallel conceptualisation of the vertical and the horizontal relationships within multi-level governance systems. Different systems of multi-level governance are characterised by the relationships between political institutions on the same level (Are there many task-specific organisations?) and by the relationship between different levels (On which level do we see political communities?). By conceptualising scale and community in a substitutive way as Hooghe and Marks in tendency do, some of the potentials are lost. I put forward the suggestion that treating the two dimensions as independent would allow for an even fuller picture of the dynamics of politics in multi-level governance systems.

Welche Folgen Corona für die internationale Ordnung haben könnte, hängt auch vom Zusammenspiel expertenfreundlicher und expertisefeindlicher Regime ab.

The current literature on politicization can be separated into three groups: politicization within national political systems, of the EU, and of international institutions. In spite of speaking about a similar phenomenon based on a common definition, these three strands of literature do not interact with each other and display, beyond the definitional consensus, significant differences. The focus on different political levels also leads to various assessments. This contribution compares these three strands of literature with the goal of showing that it is necessary to simultaneously look at all three levels to understand the dynamics of politicization and de-politicization. There is a significant potential of analyzing different (de-)politicization processes in an integrative framework to provide fresh insights for each of the fields. In fact, some of the differences between the three kinds of literature can be resolved only by looking at the three levels in parallel.

The G20 has two distinctive features that make it a unique forum in global politics. First, it is one of the few existing global platforms where different international institutions and regional organisations can coordinate across a vast array of issue areas and emergent policy fields. Second, it is an institution that brings together heads of government which control roughly 80\% of world GDP. Despite these features, the G20 lacks constitutive authority of its own, bound by a consensus principle which sharply delimits its scope of action. Notwithstanding its circumspect authority, no recent international body has garnered more attention from transnational civil society groups and advocacy networks than the G20. Most of this attention is critical and points to legitimacy problems. We argue that these legitimacy problems derive from a perception of untapped potential and undue privilege for great powers. Against this backdrop, we submit that a more active and institutionalised forum - with clear decision-making procedures for exercising authority - could help mitigate resistance and contribute to a more legitimate global governance system overall.

AbstractThis article aims to contribute to the third generation of global governance research by unfolding the concept of a global governance system consisting of normative principles and patterns of authority relationships and legitimation. The goal is to formulate a positive theory that goes beyond the negative descriptions of global governance as post‐internationalist and helps to move global governance beyond its embryonic state. The major theoretical claim is that the features of the current global governance system have endogenously produced the politicization and counter‐institutionalization of international authorities. Internal tensions of the system fuel legitimation problems and demands for change, which in the end lead – in some cases – to the decline of global governance arrangements or – in other cases – to its deepening via appropriate institutional responses.

Im vorliegenden böll.brief wird zunächst der Aufstieg des autoritären Populismus im Kontext der (politikwissenschaftlichen) Cleavagetheorie beleuchtet. In einem zweiten Teil werden ökonomische, kulturelle und politische Ursachen dieser skizzierten Entwicklung diskutiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden im abschließenden dritten Teil politische Handlungsempfehlungen vorgestellt: Was müssen die Verfechter/innen einer offenen Gesellschaft tun, um in der Auseinandersetzung erfolgreich bestehen zu können?