Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (183) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (97)
- Article (39)
- Contribution to a Periodical (15)
- Part of Periodical (12)
- Review (7)
- Working Paper (5)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Book (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (183)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (183) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (10)
- Salafismus (9)
- EU (7)
- Terrorismus (7)
- terrorism (7)
- Islamischer Staat (6)
- Adorno (5)
- Islamismus (5)
- Recognition (5)
- Reconhecimento (5)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (183) (remove)
Rezension zu:
Frank Vogl, Waging War on Corruption (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012).
Shaazka Beyerle, Curtailing Corruption, People Power for Accountability and Justice (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2014)
Rezension zu:
Ruben Andersson, Illegality, Inc. (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2014)
Amy Nethery and Stephanie J. Silverman (eds.), Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and its Human Impact. (London and New York: Routledge, 2015)
Imperialism is the domination of one state by another. This paper sketches a nonrepublican account of domination that buttresses this definition of imperialism. It then defends the following claims. First, there is a useful and defensible distinction between colonial and liberal imperialism, which maps on to a distinction between what I will call coercive and liberal domination. Second, the main institutions of contemporary globalization, such as the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, etc., are largely the instruments of liberal imperialism; they are a reincarnation of what Karl Kautsky once called ‘ultraimperialism’. Third, resistance to imperialism can no longer be founded on a fundamental right to national self-determination. Such a right is conditional upon and derivative of a more general right to resist domination.
The concept of freedom as non-domination that is associated with neo-republican theory provides a guiding ideal in the global, not just the domestic arena, and does so even on the assumption that there will continue to be many distinct states. It argues for a world in which states do not dominate members of their own people and, considered as a corporate body, no people is dominated by other agencies: not by other states and not, for example, by any international agency or multi-national corporation. This ideal is not only attractive in the abstract, it also supports a concrete range of sensible, if often radical international policies.
Contemporary liberalism and republicanism present clearly distinct programs for domestic politics, but the same cannot be said when it comes to global politics: the burgeoning literature on global republicanism has reproduced the divide between cosmopolitan and associational views familiar from long-standing debates among liberal egalitarians. Should republicans be cosmopolitans? Despite presence of a range of views in the literature, there is an emerging consensus that the best answer is no. This paper aims to resist the emerging consensus, arguing that republicans should be cosmopolitans. The considerations offered against cosmopolitanism generally rest on an incomplete understanding of the relationship between economic inequality or poverty on the one hand, and domination on the other. Insofar as republicans agree that promoting freedom from domination should be our central political aim, they should regard the reduction of economic inequality and poverty at home and abroad as equally pressing.
The article aims to sharpen the neo-republican contribution to international political thought by challenging Pettit’s view that only representative states may raise a valid claim to non-domination in their external relations. The argument proceeds in two steps: First I show that, conceptually speaking, the domination of states, whether representative or not, implies dominating the collective people at least in its fundamental, constitutive power. Secondly, the domination of states – and thus of their peoples – cannot be justified normatively in the name of promoting individual non-domination because such a compensatory rationale misconceives the notion of domination in terms of a discrete exercise of power instead of as an ongoing power relation. This speaks in favour of a more inclusive law of peoples than Pettit (just as his liberal counterpart Rawls) envisages: In order to accommodate the claim of collective peoples to non-domination it has to recognize every state as a member of the international order.
Given the current Middle Eastern scenario, one may reasonably hold the argument that the on-going turmoil in the Middle East owes its burden equally to the Machiavellian Anglo-American policies in the region and the harrowing failure of the Muslim governments/leaderships in the Middle East to rationally respond to those challenges. But are there any dimensions beyond religion?
Der deutsche und französische Innenminister haben eine Initiative gestartet um gegen Verschlüsselung vorzugehen. Ihr Argument, was von mehr oder weniger allen Geheimdiensten/Strafverfolgungsbehörden unisono vorgetragen wird lautet, dass verschlüsselte Kommunikation die Arbeit der Behörden behindere. Bereits im Jahr 1993 wurde die gleiche Debatte geführt, endete aber mit dem Konsens, dass die Vorteile von Verschlüsselung die Nachteile deutlich überwiegen. Dieser Konsens, getragen von Industrie, Datenschützern und Politik (sowohl Liberale als auch Konservative) schien sicher, war er doch die vernünftigste Antwort auf ein komplexes Problem. Heute stellen die von Rechtspopulisten getriebenen Innenminister wieder einmal die Verschlüsselung in Frage. Warum das eine schlechte Idee ist, soll dieser Beitrag klären.NSA Chef Inman argumentierte bereits 1980: “There is
a very real and critical danger that unrestrained public discussion of crypto-logic matters will seriously damage the ability of this government to conduct signals intelligence and the ability of this government to carry out its mission of protecting national security information from hostile exploitation” (1980). Kern dieses “going dark” Arguments ist also, dass digitale Überwachung schwerer würde, wenn alle verschlüsseln. Terroristen und andere bad guys könnten also nicht mehr gefangen werden. Die Debatte ist also gar nicht so neu und überraschend wie immer behauptet wird....
Social movements and institutions are central actors in national and transnational politics as well as core categories of social inquiry. Despite their importance, both terms are still haunted by a lack of thorough definitions. We introduce a blog series with ten weekly contributions on their interrelation, outlining several innovative approaches and suggesting some vantage points for rethinking ‘Movements’ and ‘Institutions’ in a productive manner.