Search results

Der Artikel befasst sich mit der geopolitischen Bedeutung der arktischen Bodenschätze sowie den sich daraus ableitenden rechtlichen und wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen. Drei Thesen stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt. Erstens: Dem Abbau von arktischem Öl und Gas stehen ernst zu nehmende Schwierigkeiten entgegen - das unwirtliche Klima, die große Entfernung von den Absatzmärkten, die Existenz von Ölvorkommen in anderen Regionen sowie der schwierige Abbau von Schiefergas. Zweitens: Es herrscht beträchtliche Unsicherheit bezüglich der Governance der Arktis, da es Körperschaften wie der Festlandsockelkommission (Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) der Vereinten Nationen (UN) und dem Arktischen Rat an multilateraler Autorität mangelt. So ergibt sich die Frage, ob die Treffen der Arctic Five, der fünf Arktis-Anrainerstaaten Kanada, Russland, USA, Norwegen und Dänemark (Grönland), zur Einrichtung eines beschlussfassenden Organs führen werden. Drittens: Momentan halten sich die Staaten, die Gebietsansprüche anmelden, zwar an internationale Normen und kooperieren miteinander, aber längerfristig wird sich das Risiko eines geopolitischen Konflikts verstärken. Und das nicht nur, weil sich der Druck von externen Akteuren in Richtung Internationalisierung der Arktis erhöhen wird, sondern auch wegen möglicher Auseinandersetzungen der Arktis-Staaten über Gebietsrechte und Bodenschätze. (ICF2)

This book addresses the consequences of legitimacy in global governance, in particular asking: when and how do legitimacy crises affect international organizations (IOs) and their capacity to rule. The book starts with a new conceptualization of legitimacy crisis that looks at public challenges from a variety of actors. Based on this conceptualization, it applies a mixed-methods approach to identify and examine legitimacy crises, starting with a quantitative analysis of mass media data on challenges of a sample of 32 IOs. It shows that some, but not all organizations have experienced legitimacy crises, spread over several decades from 1985 to 2020. Following this, the book presents a qualitative study to further examine legitimacy crises of two selected case studies: the WTO and the UNFCCC. Whereas earlier research assumed that legitimacy crises have negative consequences, the book introduces a theoretical framework that privileges the activation inherent in a legitimacy crisis. It holds that this activation may not only harm an IO, but could also strengthen it, in terms of its material, institutional, and decision-making capacity. The following statistical analysis shows that whether a crisis has predominantly negative or positive effects depends on a variety of factors. These include the specific audience whose challenges define a certain crisis, and several institutional properties of the targeted organization. The ensuing in-depth analysis of the WTO and the UNFCCC further reveals how legitimacy crises and both positive and negative consequences are interlinked, and that effects of crises are sometimes even visible beyond the organizational borders

This book addresses the consequences of legitimacy in global governance, in particular asking: when and how do legitimacy crises affect international organizations (IOs) and their capacity to rule. The book starts with a new conceptualization of legitimacy crisis that looks at public challenges from a variety of actors. Based on this conceptualization, it applies a mixed-methods approach to identify and examine legitimacy crises, starting with a quantitative analysis of mass media data on challenges of a sample of 32 IOs. It shows that some, but not all organizations have experienced legitimacy crises, spread over several decades from 1985 to 2020. Following this, the book presents a qualitative study to further examine legitimacy crises of two selected case studies: the WTO and the UNFCCC. Whereas earlier research assumed that legitimacy crises have negative consequences, the book introduces a theoretical framework that privileges the activation inherent in a legitimacy crisis. It holds that this activation may not only harm an IO, but could also strengthen it, in terms of its material, institutional, and decision-making capacity. The following statistical analysis shows that whether a crisis has predominantly negative or positive effects depends on a variety of factors. These include the specific audience whose challenges define a certain crisis, and several institutional properties of the targeted organization. The ensuing in-depth analysis of the WTO and the UNFCCC further reveals how legitimacy crises and both positive and negative consequences are interlinked, and that effects of crises are sometimes even visible beyond the organizational borders.