Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (8) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (8) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- Civil and political rights (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Demos (1)
- History of individual rights (1)
- Individual rights (1)
- Latin America (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Meinungsfreiheit (1)
- Netzwerkdurchsetzungsesetz (1)
- Pardon (1)
Institute
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (8) (remove)
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. ...
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.
Within democratic orders, it is the declared aim of a state of exception to secure or restore the endangered foundation of democracy. The provided measures are, however, undemocratic insofar they directly affect individual rights as the principle on which democracy is based: By suspending rights, the state of exception treats individuals not as members of a democratic community (demos), but as parts of a population which has to be secured. Whereas individual rights enable individuals to be part of the demos, the state of exception – by restraining rights – enforces a politics of population. In my article, I show in what way individual rights, too, are used as a strategy of governing the population. Referring to the history of individual rights in the early modern period, I describe a specific form of alienation of individual rights. I argue that this alienation consists in the separation of a private from the political component of individual rights. This alienation is the reason for a dialectical shift from demos to population which occurs in an extreme form in the state of exception. Against this background, the question of the state of exception and the question of individual rights appear in an unfamiliar but crucial relation. In order to oppose the dialectical shift and the misuse of exceptional measures, I claim it necessary to insist on the inextricable link between the private and the political component of individual rights – that is to extend the domain of democracy.
Das "Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken" (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, NetzDG) hatte bereits während seiner kurzen Entstehungszeit heftige Kritik ausgelöst und wird von zahlreichen Beobachtern auch in seiner in Kraft getretenen Fassung für unionsrechts- und grundgesetzwidrig gehalten. In Zweifel stehen vor allen Dingen die Gesetzgebungskompetenz des Bundes und die Vereinbarkeit des NetzDG mit der Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit. Gegenwärtig sind drei Anträge auf vollständige bzw. teilweise Aufhebung des NetzDG im Bundestag anhängig (hier, hier und hier). Auch bei den Regierungsfraktionen steht das NetzDG unverändert auf der rechtspolitischen Agenda. Im Koalitionsvertrag heißt es, die am 1.7.2018 erstmals fälligen Berichte der Plattformbetreiber sollen zum Anlass genommen werden, "das Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz insbesondere im Hinblick auf die freiwillige Selbstregulierung weiterzuentwickeln". ...
What motivates welfare attitudes during economic crises? While existing research highlights self-interest, this conclusion rests on a predominant conceptualization of citizens’ crisis experiences as personal job loss. However, during economic downturns, people are likely to also witness colleagues or distant others being laid off, which might affect welfare attitudes for reasons beyond self-interest. This article analyses how personal job loss as well as that of colleagues and acquaintances during the Great Recession is related to welfare attitudes in the UK, Germany and Sweden, where welfare regimes and crisis policies differ systematically. Based on Eurobarometer data from 2010, the findings reveal that the importance of personal job loss as well as that of colleagues and acquaintances varies cross-nationally. In the liberal UK – with its modest crisis response – demand for greater public welfare provision is associated with personal job loss. In social-democratic Sweden – with its active crisis management – demand for greater welfare provision is associated with acquaintances’ job loss. In conservative Germany – with its labour market insider-focused crisis response – no clear picture emerges. These findings support a sociological perspective emphasizing the importance of other-regarding concerns for welfare attitudes and the role of institutions in structuring people’s self-interest and normative orientations.
Welchen Stellenwert hat der Glaube im Bereich der menschlichen Überzeugungen? Wie verhalten sich Wissen und Gewissheit zueinander? Die moderne Wissenschaft wird oft mit Faktenwissen gleichgesetzt, doch ohne die Reflexion über die Welt ist Wissenschaft nicht denkbar. Sie findet z.B. statt in der Religionsphilosophie.
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.