Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (25) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Report (8)
- Contribution to a Periodical (4)
- Review (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- Internet Governance (2)
- Ausnahmezustand (1)
- Blasphemy Law (1)
- Bridge International (1)
- Civil and political rights (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Demos (1)
- European Union (1)
- Fronsperger, Leonhard (1)
- Gemeinwohl (1)
Institute
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (25) (remove)
"Sozialwissenschaftlich aufschlussreich sind für mich nicht Zustände, sondern Verläufe – oder Zustände nur im Zusammenhang von Verläufen. Theorien, die Strukturen oder Ereignisse als freistehende Unikate in einem feststehenden Ereignis- und Möglichkeitsraum behandeln, können fundamental in die Irre führen. Alles Soziale spielt sich in der Zeit ab, entfaltet sich mit der Zeit und wird in und mit ihr sich selber ähnlicher. Was wir heute sehen, können wir nur verstehen, wenn wir wissen, wie es gestern ausgesehen hat und auf welchem Weg es sich befindet. Alles, was vorfindlich ist, ist immer auf einem Entwicklungspfad unterwegs. Auf diesen kommt es entscheidend an." ...
The illiberal turn in Europe has many facets. Of particular concern are Member States in which ruling majorities uproot the independence of the judiciary. For reasons well described in the Verfassungsblog, the current focus is on Poland. Since the Polish development is emblematic for a broader trend, more is at stake than the rule of law in that Member State alone (as if that were not enough). If the Polish emblematic development is not resisted, illiberal democracies might start co-defining the European constitutional order, in particular, its rule of law-value in Article 2 TEU. Accordingly, the conventional liberal self-understanding of Europe could easily erode, with tremendous implications.
On February 20 at the Max Planck Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, the Legal Historian and member of the Constitutional Court of Peru, Dr. Carlos Ramos Núñez, presented a crucial intervention on the problems that face the current constitutionalism in Latin America. Faced with a heterogeneous group of historians, philosophers and theoreticians of law, interested in the vicissitudes of Latin American juridical evolution, the political-juridical tensions of the Peruvian present served him as a framework to raise various constitutional problems and controversies. ...
Rule is commonly conceptualized with reference to the compliance it invokes. In this article, we propose a conception of rule via the practice of resistance instead. In contrast to liberal approaches, we stress the possibility of illegitimate rule, and, as opposed to critical approaches, the possibility of legitimate authority. In the international realm, forms of rule and the changes they undergo can thus be reconstructed in terms of the resistance they provoke. To this end, we distinguish between two types of resistance—opposition and dissidence—in order to demonstrate how resistance and rule imply each other. We draw on two case studies of resistance in and to international institutions to illustrate the relationship between rule and resistance and close with a discussion of the normative implications of such a conceptualization.
Almost a decade ago, the internet was celebrated as one of history’s greatest liberation tools. People have unparalleled access to information and a greater deal of freedom to express themselves without fear of censorship or reprisal. This enthusiasm was short-lived, however. Today’s internet is heaving with hate speech, censorship, fake news, misinformation, and all forms of extremism. Governments have tightened their grip on digital spaces, and tech companies have grown into nontransparent empires with immense influence on the world’s politics, economies, and societies. These changes have brought forward new terrains of conflict and have redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state.
With the rise of big data, internet-of-things, machine learning, targeted advertising, face recognition algorithms, virtual assistants, cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and cyberwarfare, we find more and more people and policy makers around the world debating whether technological advances are helping us or hurting us. Such debates often focus on trying to figure out a way to balance the need to preserve human values with the desire to not interfere with technological progress. The central problem that arises then is what to do when values and progress come into direct conflict with each other. Should we err on the side of caution and rein in companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook so they do not interfere with personal privacy and national democracy? Or should we take a more pioneering perspective and view the occasional rights violation as a necessary risk that can be outweighed by the rewards for medicine, manufacturing, and media? Or should we try to find a middle path and have tech companies and policy makers work together to develop guidelines for “responsible research and innovation”?