Suchergebnisse

This contribution sketches a conceptualization of authority and rule in Global Governance. The core of this conception is in line with the tradition of the sociology of domination 'deference', not 'resistance'. This logic of deference builds on epistemic foundations and thus is able to see and criticize forms of authority and rule that do not come into perspective with a focus on resistance. With respect to Global Governance and the especially liquid forms of authority in this realm, the sketched theoretical perspective can be labelled 'reflexive authority'. It is developed by discussing four constitutive terminological pairs: rule and authority, simple and reflexive authority, authority and legitimacy, and finally political and epistemic authority. The contribution ends with some illustrating hypotheses about the development of Global Governance derived from this perspective. Adapted from the source document.

Simply the relationship between globalization and democracy is not. The times in which globalization is a page exclusively negative regarded as gravediggers for the welfare state and democracy are over. But has long since broken the belief in the material and moral blessings of globalization on the other side. Long ago, the side effects are obvious - not least for the democratic process. Adapted from the source document.

In engaging with Markus Patberg's constructive criticism, this reply develops a third model for the empirical study of legitimacy, which moves beyond the dichotomy of measurement and judgment. Substantially, I thereby juxtapose Patberg's interpretation of the data as the rise of "critical citizens" with the democratic paradox arising from the decreasing dignity of majority decisions ("critical decisions"). Adapted from the source document.

The core thesis of this contribution is that the primarily democratic sources of political legitimacy appear to be declining in significance. The crisis of parliamentary democracy in the West, the political and economic ascent of authoritatively constituted powers worldwide, the emergence of political authority beyond the nation state, and, connected to that, a corresponding rise in conflicting legal systems all point to the fact that underlying social and political developments lead to a shift within the set of established justifications of legitimate authority. In the course of present changes in the political landscape vis-a-vis sources of legitimacy like law, expertise, accountability, and collective identity, primarily democratic sources of political authority like participation and public discourse are beginning to fall by the wayside. Remarkably enough, these changes enjoy a high degree of public acceptance. These developments cause the democratic principle to become relativized in the course of deliberations over good political order; and, to that extent, the question of justification of legitimate authority and with it the question of democracy have been forced back onto the center stage of political controversies all over the world. This has far-reaching implications for political science as a formal discipline -- which indeed first began in Germany as Demokratiewissenschaft, the "science of democracy". Adapted from the source document.

Comments on John J. Mearsheimer's "Why is There Peace in Europe?" (2009). Adapted from the source document.

Both realists & institutionalists have radicalized their analyses & findings in recent years. Whereas one camp no longer speaks exclusively of bipolarity & hegemony, but of unipolarity & empire, the other no longer refers exclusively to international regimes & institutions, but to global governance & constitutionalization. And both can refer to real world developments in support of their analyses. However, conceptual perspectives that can do justice to this dual development -- ie., the increasing dominance of the USA in the international system & the increasing significance of global norms -- are lacking. The aim of this paper is to present such an integrated view & to argue that a constitutional world polity & unipolarity are not the poles of a one-dimensional category. Instead, it is possible that the significance of international norms & imbalances in the international distribution of power increase simultaneously. To this extent, the talk of both a new empire & of the world republic encompasses real & relevant developments. However, it is not until they are considered in combination that an adequate picture emerges: in fact, according to the core thesis of this paper, a third phenomenon, a "legally stratified multilevel system," appears to be emerging. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Two disparate developments form today's world order: the unipolar dominance of the USA on the one hand, & the increasing significance of global norms on the other hand. Viewed together, a picture of a legal stratified multilevel system emerges, wherein the basic principle of the rule of law is being undermined. Adapted from the source document.

The constitutional treaty of the EU failed. Why so? Does this failure indicate the end of European integration & the beginning of re-nationalization of European politics? This contribution argues that the failure of the constitutional treaty is due to a process of politicization of the EU. As a result, political processes beyond the nation state are judged increasingly not just on the basis of their effectiveness, but also in terms of the criteria for good political order, such as fairness & legitimacy. The respective governments of the EU member states, however, publicly still take an instrumental approach to the EU. This is doomed to failure & thus the future of the European project is open. Either politics adapts to the new evaluation criteria for European integration or a partial re-nationalization of European politics is indeed likely. References. Adapted from the source document.

Discusses decreasing public acceptance of international institutions due to their normative legitimacy deficits. S. M. Lipset's (1960) hypothesis that in modern societies, empirical belief in the legitimacy of an institution is dependent on the normative validity of a political order is applied in four steps. First, the institutional dynamic of the international political order since WWII is outlined. Second, the new quality of international institutions formed over the past 20 years to enlarge & deepen international cooperation is assessed. Third, observations that the quality of the new international institutions are causing problems of societal acceptance are made. Reasons for the resistance are explored. New forms of legitimation & resistance against global governance dominated by executive multilateralism are needed. Fourth, ways to test this examination are suggested. International institutions require the backing of transnational society & their respective national societies. 1 Table. L. A. Hoffman

Technological & political development of the last two to three decades led to the lessening of space as an obstacle to social interaction. Today, therefore, boundaries of social action networks often lie outside of the political boundaries of the nation-state. In this process of globalization, a social de-nationalization is present, a reduced ability to reach the goals of governance through national politics. According to the author, a new role arises for the international & intergovernmental institutions accompanied by supra & transnational processes. Adapted from the source document.

International institutions not only increase system effectiveness or output legitimacy, but are also a normatively plausible response to the problems for democracy that are caused by globalization. In this way, international institutions also increase input legitimacy. It is therefore a false approach to pin down the problem of democracy beyond the nation-state as a choice between "effective problem-solving through international institutions" & "democratic political processes." At the same time, it is indisputable that the actual functioning of these international institutions does not meet democratic standards. By correctly pointing to the deficits of current international institutions, skeptics too quickly conclude that most deficits in the working of international institutions cannot be remedied. The skeptical argument is founded on two more or less explicit background hypotheses that can be empirically challenged. The first background hypothesis states that a demos cannot exist at the transnational level. I will modify this statement in theoretical terms & offer some conceptual distinctions that may prepare the ground for further empirical investigation. The second background hypothesis of the skeptics postulates a zero-sum relationship between national sovereignty & supranationality. I will put forward some concrete institutional proposals that undermine the zero-sum logic of the skeptics, concluding that in a denationalized society, democratic legitimacy can only be achieved by a mixed constitution comprising majority procedures & negotiation mechanisms. 2 Figures, 125 References. Adapted from the source document.