Suchergebnisse

This essay argues, that the path of Hannah Arendt, escaping the Hitler-regime, is reflected in a special mode in her trilogy of political science. In the book on totalitarianism she would say good bye to the European modernity. But in "Vita activa" she would turn back to the ancient Greek origins of the political. & in her book on revolution finally she would end with the discussion of the alternative between French & American democracy, judging demonstratively for the latter line of tradition.

The objective of this article is to contribute to an understanding of Hannah Arendt's special place in present-day political theory by means of a contrast between her Origins of Totalitarianism & four important political science studies of National Socialism & totalitarianism, three written by authors who shared the status of involuntary emigrant with Arendt, that are offered as constituting the original context of her work. A critical appreciation of the seminal works by Ernst Fraenkel, Franz L. Neumann, Sigmund Neumann, & Carl Joachim Friedrich & Zbigniew Brezinski, with special emphasis on questions of method, opens the way to a reconsideration of the distinctly philosophical character of Arendt's work, & its shocking challenges to the scientific orientations of political science. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright 2004.]

German-American Ernst Fraenkel became a founding father of political science in West Germany. He also helped to reorient the political culture toward Western democracy. The article concentrates on Fraenkel's postwar writings, mainly on his comparative studies & his "Das amerikanische Regierungssystem" (1960). It is shown that these writings' scope & methods follow the lines of a "political & intercultural hermeneutics," which has German antidemocratic tradition & Western political thought as its poles of reflection. Adapted from the source document.

An examination of Sigmund Neumann's neglected book, Permanent Revolution (1942), maintains that it deserves a prominent place among works addressing the concept of totalitarianism. Neumann uses a social science comparative method to explore the origins of national socialism & Stalinism, which allows him to expose differences & similarities between the two regimes without erroneously equating them. Neumann believed social science concepts should be rooted as firmly as possible in real historical trends, & he strove to reveal the social structure of totalitarian rule in specific historical contexts. The influence of Neumann's life, politics, & scholarship as a Jewish refugee from AdolfHitler in the US academic community is considered. Analysis of the book focuses on the history of the concept of dictatorship; Neumann's comparative approach to the complexities of totalitarian dictatorship; his use of Max Weber's "ideal type"; the relationship of the masses to general social tendencies in society; & his belief that the social & psychological roots of totalitarianism were embedded in the inability to cope with the trauma of WWI. J. Lindroth

In a reply to Reimund Schwarze's comment (see abstract) on his view of the role of common law (CL) in environmental issues (see abstract 95P10015), Sollner defends his claim that CL is not suited for this area. Contrary to Schwarze's critique, statutory liability is favored over CL liability, & it is argued that CL remains an inefficient means of dealing with the majority of large-number cases. Furthermore, it is suggested that the CL success stories cited by Schwarze would not have been possible without the simplified & standardized precedents established by statutory law. CL is also criticized for its inherent bias in favor of the polluter, regardless of previous outcomes. It is concluded that although the dichotomy of small- vs large-number cases may seem arbitrary, this distinction is essential to evaluating the historical & potential efficiency of common & statutory law cases. 6 References. T. Sevier

THIS PAPER DISCUSSES THE ROLE OF COMMON LAW IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. IT IS SHOWN THAT COMMON LAW ACTUALLY TENDS TOWARDS EFFICIENCY ONLY UNDER QUITE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS - CONDITIONS THAT ARE FULFILLED ONLY FOR VERY FEW, LESS IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. MOREOVER, IN THESE CASES COMMON LAW NEED NOT EVEN BE EFFICIENT BECAUSE AN EFFICIENT SOLUTION CAN BE NEGOTIATED ONCE THE ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS IS UNDISPUTED. FURTHERMORE, COMMON LAW NEGLECTS IMPORTANT DISTRIBUTIONAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS AND IS BIASED TOWARDS THE STATUS QUO. THEREFORE, DEALING WITH TODAY'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS CANNOT BE LEFT TO THE COMMON LAW PROCESS BUT NECESSITATES LEGISLATIVE ACTION.