Suchergebnisse

the body of literature on institutional fragmentation and interlinkages has become quite extensive over the last 10-15 years, especially in global environmental governance research. This common ground and the merits of existing scholarly approaches notwithstanding, there are still major new conceptual, theoretical and empirical grounds to be explored. Conceptually, the literature could further go beyond additive accounts that are underspecified with regard to the quality of relations among various components of an institutional complex. Instead, more multi-criteria sets should be developed to assess and compare different degrees of fragmentation across environmental issue areas. Moreover, new methodical ground can be broken following the pioneering examples of different network approaches and mappings (Hollway 2013; Kim and Mackey 2013; Widerberg 2014). Similarly, more can be done to root the study of institutional fragmentation and interlinkages theoretically (Chambers et al. 2008, p. 7; cf. O. Young 2008, p. 134). What Underdal (2006, p. 9) observed nearly ten years ago for research on interlinkages also goes for fragmentation research today: the focus of explanatory approaches has been so far 'primarily on interaction at the level of specific regimes and less on links to the kind of basic ordering principles or norms highlighted in realist and sociological analyses of institutions.' Indeed, some the most influential approaches in the literature on institutional complexity suffice with basic ideas about causal pathways while falling short of more fundamental theoretical approaches that relate to concepts of power, interests, knowledge, norms or other scope conditions (e.g. Keohane and Victor 2011). Moreover, many studies still attend to the normative question whether a centralized or a polycentric global governance architecture is preferable (Biermann et al. 2009a; Ostrom 2010; Rayner 2010; Keohane and Victor 2011). This entangling of analytical and normative claims may have partly stood in the way of the development of more fundamental theoretical frameworks. To be clear: I do not mean to build a strawman argument here. As shown, various authors have begun to address this research gap more systematically, notably Oberthür and Stokke (2011), Gehring and Faude (2013), Zürn and Faude (2013) Orsini et al. (2013) and Van de Graaf (2013) – based inter alia on neoliberal institutionalism, sociological differentiation theory or functionalist approaches. As Zelli and van Asselt (2013) argue in the introductory article to a special issue on the institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance, causal explanations would not need to re-invent the wheel but could in part be derived from different strands of institutionalism and cooperation theory. This 'institutionalism revisited' could develop and examine assumptions that link the degree of fragmentation in a given issue area of environmental governance to, for instance: the constellation of power, drawing on neo-realist perspectives (cf. Benvenisti and Downs 2007); situation structures and constellations of interests, based on NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM (cf. Rittberger and Zürn 1990; Van de Graaf 2013); major qualities of the issue area (e.g. the global or local nature of a good; the level of scientific certainty) and the question of institutional fit (O. Young 2002); conflicts among core norms or the contestation of discourses (Zelli et al. 2013; see also LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISM).Finally, a whole set of empirical themes merits attention of future single case studies or comparative analyses across environmental domains, for example:- the interactions between TRANSNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS and public institutions (Abbott 2014); - the consequences of fragmentation for different types of non-state actors, including further in-depth studies about the legitimacy, accountability and inclusiveness of complex governance architectures (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee 2013; Orsini 2013); - the impact of fragmentation on the overall EFFECTIVENESS of a global governance architecture, by both QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS and QUANTITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, e.g. by adopting counter-factual approaches to an entire institutional complex (cf. Hovi et al. 2003; Stokke 2012); - the suitability and effectiveness of specific management attempts like ORCHESTRATION (Abbott and Snidal 2010);- the stability or fragility of institutional complexes, including the question whether they move towards a (new) division of labour (Gehring and Faude 2013) or rather towards new types of positional differences and conflicts (Zelli 2011).

We model a simple market setting in which fragmentation of trade of the same asset across multiple exchanges improves allocative efficiency. Fragmentation reduces the inhibiting effect of price-impact avoidance on order submission. Although fragmentation reduces market depth on each exchange, it also isolates cross-exchange price impacts, leading to more aggressive overall order submission and better rebalancing of unwanted positions across traders. Fragmentation also has implications for the extent to which prices reveal traders' private information. While a given exchange price is less informative in more fragmented markets, all exchange prices taken together are more informative. (JEL D47, D82, G14)

In its issue of July 1975, the International Review reprinted the substance of a circular letter sent to all governments inviting them to participate in the second session of the Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons at Lugano, 28 January to 26 February 1976.The letter gave the programme of the Conference, which will deal with incendiary weapons, small-calibre projectiles, delayed-action and treacherous weapons, blast and fragmentation weapons and other new weapons, continuing the work on conventional weapons which might cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects.

Is the end of the nation-state approaching, now that the international economy takes less and less notice of borders between countries and the European Union has already acquired so much political power? What does national autonomy mean when governments delegate any number of powers to international organizations? Internationalization leads to political change, and the position of the nation-state appears to be undergoing a radical process of erosion. The surprising conclusion of this book is that the political significance of the state will not be lost. The analyses show that both expansion and fragmentation of political power are characteristics of fundamental political change. While it is true that the state is delegating authority and that internationalization is limiting autonomy, the state is also finding new forms of cooperation and coordination, both nationally and internationally, to preserve and even to strengthen its power and autonomy. Contrary to widely held assumptions, the idea of a progressive weakening of the nationstate does not prove tenable.

The development of European Union law plays a fundamental role in the transformation of contract law in civil law systems. This article assesses these transformations of continental legal systems through the notion of juridical subject. It is argued that the evolution of a different conception and regulation of the juridical subject derives from a new conception of competition and of the market order, which involves a major transformation of the function of contract law and of the founding notions of this legal field. The transformations brought forth by a new conception of the market order and the development of the European Union are assessed on the basis of examples taken by French, German and Italian law. Just as the unity of the juridical subject and of the contract stemmed from a specific philosophical and economic approach, the same is true for the present fragmentation, which stems from a new understanding which challenges the foundations and the functions of private law.

Describes fragmentation of the party system and the end of the dominance of the Congress party, the shifting of power to the states, and the consensus on economic liberalization.

The rapid emergence of the policy sci conception is a consequence of profound changes in the modern world, & in turn is affecting public & private decision. In broad outline European civilization has passed from a high level of homogeneity to increasing fragmentation, & more recently toward a new & comprehensive configurative outlook. (1) The diff'iation of the modern world fostered the fragmentation of intellectual life. It reduced the relative number of men of knowledge who gave attention to the map of knowledge as a whole, or to the soc consequences & policy implications of sci & scholarship. (2) At a later state of diff'iation specialists attain a high level of involvement in the policy processes of society. Increasingly they utilize a configurative approach to the advancement & application of knowledge. (3) At first, special & exclusive interests are multiplied by diff'iation & fragmentation. As the aggregate impact of men of knowledge expands, particular demands are made more universal. This is a by-product of coalition formation. (4) Configurative ways of thinking do not necessarily result in effective control by champions of democratic & peaceful policy aims unless genuine freedom of access to knowledge--to data banks--is maintained, realistic common interests are unlikely to be defined either by policy sci'ts or decisionmakers. Modified HA.