Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Report (419)
- Article (28)
- Working Paper (20)
- Review (14)
- Book (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- German (362)
- English (126)
- Polish (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (491)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (491)
Keywords
- Islamischer Staat (35)
- Deutschland (30)
- Terrorismus (29)
- USA (25)
- IS (24)
- Syrien (23)
- Salafismus (19)
- Russland (17)
- EU (15)
- Wikileaks (15)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (491) (remove)
Der Beitrag bietet eine Einführung in das Thema „Vertrauen als Topos der Plattformregulierung“. Dazu wird in einem ersten Schritt das allgemeine Verhältnis zwischen dem sozialen Tatbestand „Vertrauen“ und dem Recht als das einer komplementären, wechselseitigen Wirkungsverstärkung beschrieben. Im Hinblick auf die vertrauensfördernde Rolle des Rechts wird in einem zweiten Schritt zwischen der Funktion des Vertrauens bzw. der Vertrauenswürdigkeit als Tatbestandselement einer Vorschrift und den hieran geknüpften Rechtsfolgen unterschieden. Auf der Basis dieser Grundlagen gibt der Aufsatz in einem dritten Schritt einen Überblick über Bezugnahmen auf „Vertrauen“ in der deutschen und europäischen Plattformregulierung seit 2015. Hierzu zählen sektorale Regelungen gegen Hasskriminalität und Desinformation sowie zum Schutz des Urheberrechts, die 2022 in den horizontal angelegten Digital Services Act mündeten, der ein insgesamt „vertrauenswürdiges Online-Umfeld“ gewährleisten soll. Viertens stellt der Beitrag ein abstrakt-analytisches Konzept des Vertrauens vor, das sich gut zur Analyse der aufgezählten Vertrauensbeziehungen und ihrer rechtlichen Regelungen eignet. Ein abschließender Ausblick deutet die Proliferation des Vertrauenstopos als Ausdruck einer Vertrauenskrise im digitalen Zeitalter. Die erstrebte Vertrauenswürdigkeit des Online-Umfelds bildet ein normatives Minimum, das über gesetzliche Verhaltenspflichten und Privilegien für vertrauenswürdige Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft erreicht werden soll. Ob dies gelingt und überhaupt wünschenswert ist, ist freilich offen. Die juristische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Topos des Vertrauens in der Digital- und Plattformregulierung hat gerade erst begonnen.
In this article, we propose to develop a realist interpretation of political progress—that is, an analysis of what it means to achieve better conditions of life in society under political power according to realist standards. Specifically, we are interested in identifying the criteria according to which political realism defines a change in the status quo as a desirable change...
My aim in this paper is to make the debates about epistemic injustice fruitful for an analysis of trust in the knowledge of others. Epistemic trust is understood here in a broad sense: not only as trust in scientific knowledge or expert knowledge, but also as trust in implicit, positioned and experience-based knowledge. Using insights from discussions of epistemic injustice, I argue for three interrelated theses:
1. Questions of epistemic trust and trustworthiness cannot be answered with reference to individual virtue alone; rather, they have a structural component.
2. The rationality of epistemic trust must be analyzed against the background of social structures and social relations of domination.
3. Epistemic trust is (also) a political phenomenon and epistemically just relations depend on political transformation processes that promote equality.
The resurgence of populism and the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic have consolidated an appeal to the language of trust and distrust in the political arena, but any reference to these notions has often turned into an ideological and polarized debate. As a result, the possibility of developing an appropriate picture of the conditions for trust in politics has been undermined. To navigate the different demands for trust raised in the political arena, a notion of political trust must cover two partially unfulfilled tasks. One is to clarify what trust means when referring specifically to the political context. The other is to connect political trust to other notions that populate the debate on trustworthiness in the political arena - those of rational, moral, epistemic, and procedural trust. I will show how the political categories I use to define the scope of a political notion of trust function as normative leverages to develop politics-compatible versions of rational, moral, procedural, and epistemic trust.
Over the last three decades, countries across the Andean region have moved toward legal recognition of indigenous justice systems. This turn toward legal pluralism, however, has been and continues to be heavily contested. The working paper explores a theoretical perspective that aims at analyzing and making sense of this contentious process by assessing the interplay between conflict and (mis)trust. Based on a review of the existing scholarship on legal pluralism and indigenous justice in the Andean region, with a particular focus on the cases of Bolivia and Ecuador, it is argued that manifest conflict over the contested recognition of indigenous justice can be considered as helpful and even necessary for the deconstruction of mistrust of indigenous justice. Still, such conflict can also help reproduce and even reinforce mistrust, depending on the ways in which conflict is dealt with politically and socially. The exploratory paper suggests four proposition that specify the complex and contingent relationship between conflict and (mis)trust in the contested negotiation of pluralist justice systems in the Andean region.
The article studies civil wars and trust dynamics from two perspectives. It looks, first, at rebel governance during ongoing armed conflict and, second, at mass mobilisation against the regime in post-conflict societies. Both contexts are marked by extraordinarily high degrees of uncertainty given continued, or collective memory of, violence and repression.
But what happens to trust relations under conditions of extreme uncertainty? Intuitively, one would assume that trust is shaken or even substantially eroded in such moments, as political and social orders are questioned on a fundamental level and threaten to collapse. However, while it is true that some forms of trust are under assault in situations of civil war and mass protests, we find empirical evidence which suggests that these situations also give rise to the formation of other kinds of trust. We argue that, in order to detect and explain these trust dynamics in contexts of extreme uncertainty, there should be more systematic studies of: (a) synchronous dynamics between different actors and institutions which imply trust dynamics happening simultaneously, (b) diachronous dynamics and the sequencing of trust dynamics over several phases of violent conflict or episodes of contention, as well as long-term structural legacies of the past. In both dimensions, microlevel relations, as well as their embeddedness in larger structures, help explain how episodes of (non-)violent contention become a critical juncture for political and social trust.
This paper challenges widespread assumptions in trust research according to which trust and conflict are opposing terms or where trust is generally seen as a value. Rather, it argues that trust is only valuable if properly justified, and it places such justifications in contexts of social and political conflict. For these purposes, the paper suggests a distinction between a general concept and various conceptions of trust, and it defines the concept as a four-place one. With regard to the justification of trust, a distinction between internal and full justification is introduced, and the justification of trust is linked to relations of justification between trusters and trusted. Finally, trust in conflict(s) emerges were such relations exist among the parties of a conflict, often by way of institutional mediation.
Carl von Clausewitz’ Denken über den Krieg steht paradigmatisch für ein instrumentelles Verständnis von Gewalt in der Politik. Gewalt ist für Clausewitz ein Mittel, das im Krieg verwendet wird, um politische Zwecke zu erreichen. Seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts ist jedoch die Ansicht weit verbreitet, dass Clausewitz’ Überlegungen keine Gültigkeit mehr besitzen. Gegenwärtige Formen des Krieges seien zwar gewaltsam, aber nicht mehr politisch, weil sie nicht allein von Staaten oder aus einer eng verstandenen Staatsräson heraus geführt werden. Der Einwand missversteht jedoch Clausewitz’ Begriff der Politik. Dieser soll im vorliegenden Aufsatz systematisch rekonstruiert werden. Dem zu entwickelnden Interpretationsvorschlag zufolge bezeichnet „Politik“ in Clausewitz’ theoretischem System zunächst einmal nur ganz allgemein eine Interaktion von zwei oder mehr Akteuren, die jeweils ihren Willen realisieren wollen, deren Willen sich jedoch nicht vollständig vereinen lassen. Krieg ist für Clausewitz dann solche Politik, die mit gewaltsamen Mitteln betrieben wird. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird argumentiert, dass Clausewitz’ Theorie des Krieges einen fruchtbaren Analyserahmen bietet, mit dem sich die Transformationen der politischen Gewalt von den Kabinettskriegen des 18. Jahrhunderts bis zu den „neuen Kriegen“ unserer Zeit nachvollziehen lassen.
Some realists in political theory deny that the notion of feasibility has any place in realist theory, while others claim that feasibility constraints are essential elements of realist normative theorising. But none have so far clarified what exactly they are referring to when thinking of feasibility and political realism together. In this article, we develop a conception of the realist feasibility frontier based on an appraisal of how political realism should be distinguished from non-ideal theories. In this realist framework, political standards are feasible if they meet three requirements: they are (i) politically intelligible, (ii) contextually recognisable as authoritative, and (iii) contestable. We conclude by suggesting that our conception of realist feasibility might be compatible with utopian demands, thereby possibly finding favour with realists who otherwise refuse to resort to the notion of feasibility.