320 Politikwissenschaft
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (16) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (16) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- democracy (2)
- Carl von Clausewitz (1)
- Common Agricultural Policy (1)
- Conflict (1)
- Data quality (1)
- Democracy (1)
- European Green Deal (1)
- European Union (1)
- Failed states (1)
- Forschungsmethoden (1)
Mehr als 7 Prozent der Treibhausgase, die in Deutschland freigesetzt werden, stammen aus der Landwirtschaft: Von wiederkäuenden Rindern etwa, aus stickstoffhaltigen Düngemitteln. Hinzu kommen Emissionen aus trockengelegten Mooren oder aus verrottendem Humus umgepflügter Wiesen. Rund 58 Milliarden Euro fließen jährlich vom EU-Budget in die europäische Landwirtschaft. Dies gibt Bund und Ländern viele Möglichkeiten, etwas für den Klimaschutz zu tun.
Seit jeher haben Konfliktparteien die Kontrolle über die Wasserversorgung genutzt, um ihre Herrschaft zu stabilisieren, Gegner zu schwächen oder territoriale Gewinne zu erzielen. Durch den globalen Klimawandel und die damit verbundene Wasserknappheit wird diese Praxis noch wirksamer und schädlicher. Um das Bewusstsein für dieses lang vernachlässigte Phänomen zu schärfen und die betroffene Bevölkerung zu unterstützen, ist ein interdisziplinärer Forschungsansatz unabdingbar.
After a recent spate of terrorist attacks in European and American cities, liberal democracies are reintroducing emergency securitarian measures (ESMs) that curtail rights and/or expand police powers. Political theorists who study ESMs are familiar with how such measures become instruments of discrimination and abuse, but the fundamental conflict ESMs pose for not just civil liberty but also democratic equality still remains insufficiently explored. Such phenomena are usually explained as a function of public panic or fear-mongering in times of crisis, but I show that the tension between security and equality is in fact much deeper and more general. It follows a different logic than the more familiar tension between security and liberty, and it concerns not just the rule of law in protecting liberty but also the role of law in integrating new or previously subjected groups into a democratic community. As liberal-democratic societies become increasingly diverse and multicultural in the present era of mass immigration and global interconnectedness, this tension between security and equality is likely to become more pronounced.
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.
Militarization, factionalism and political transitions: an inquiry into the causes of state collapse
(2020)
Why do some fragile states collapse while others do not? This article presents results from a comparative analysis of the causes of state collapse. Using a dataset of 15 cases of state collapse between 1960 and 2007, we conduct both synchronic and diachronic comparisons with two different control groups of fragile states using crisp-set QCA. The results support our hypothesis that state collapse has multiple causes. The militarization of political groups, when combined with other conditions, plays a major part in the process. Other causal factors are political transition, extreme poverty, declining government resources or external aid, factionalist politics, repression and pre-colonial polities. This challenges structuralist explanations focusing on regime types and the resource curse, among other things, and opens up avenues for further research.
In the present article we argue that all communication is medial in the sense that every human sign-based interaction is shaped by medial aspects from the outset. We propose a dynamic, semiotic concept of media that focuses on the process-related aspect of mediality, and we test the applicability of this concept using as an example the second presidential debate between Clinton and Trump in 2016. The analysis shows in detail how the sign processing during the debate is continuously shaped by structural aspects of television and specific traits of political communication in television. This includes how the camerawork creates meaning and how the protagonists both use the affordances of this special mediality. Therefore, it is not adequate in our view to separate the technical aspects of the medium, the ‘hardware’, from the processual aspects and the structural conditions of communication. While some aspects of the interaction are directly constituted by the medium, others are more indirectly shaped and influenced by it, especially by its institutional dimension – we understand them as second-order media effects. The whole medial procedure with its specific mediality is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of meaning-making. We distinguish the medial procedure from the semiotic modes employed, the language games played and the competence of the players involved.
The policy studies literature is divided on how information processing takes place in policy processes. Punctuated equilibrium theory claims that policymakers tend to process information disproportionately, giving more weight to some incoming signals than to others. By contrast, thermostatic models of policymaking argue that policymakers respond in a more proportionate way. In this paper, we analyse information processing in the adoption of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) under the European Union’s (EU) Common Fisheries Policy. Based on a novel measure for the proportionality of information processing, it shows that over time TACs have become more closely aligned with incoming signals about fish stocks. This development can be explained through a combination of changing discourses around fisheries conservation and institutional adjustments in EU fisheries policy. This analysis has implications for the debate between punctuated equilibrium and thermostatic models of policymaking and our understanding of the effectiveness of EU fisheries policies.
Disagreement among philosophers over the proper justification for political institutions is far from a new phenomenon. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that there is substantial room for dissent on this matter within democratic theory. As is well known, instrumentalism and proceduralism represent the two primary viewpoints that democrats can adopt to vindicate democratic legitimacy. While the former notoriously derives the value of democracy from its outcomes, the latter claims that a democratic decision-making process is inherently valuable. This article has two aims. First, it introduces three variables with which we can thoroughly categorise the aforementioned approaches. Second, it argues that the more promising version of proceduralism is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, and that extrinsically procedural accounts can appeal to other values in the justification of democracy without translating into instrumentalism. This article is organised as follows. I present what I consider to be the ‘implicit view’ in the justification of democracy. Then, I analyse each of the three variables in a different section. Finally, I raise an objection against procedural views grounded in relational equality, which cannot account for the idea that democracy is a necessary condition for political legitimacy.