Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (196) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (104)
- Article (53)
- Review (12)
- Contribution to a Periodical (9)
- Part of Periodical (6)
- Working Paper (3)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (196)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (196) (remove)
Keywords
- Adorno (6)
- global justice (5)
- Reconhecimento (4)
- Theodor W. Adorno (4)
- Axel Honneth (3)
- Donald Trump (3)
- Honneth (3)
- Recognition (3)
- Critical theory (2)
- Cuidado em saúde (2)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (196) (remove)
What processes transform (im)mobile individuals into ‘migrants’ and geographic movements across political-territorial borders into ‘migration’? To address this question, the article develops the doing migration approach, which combines perspectives from social constructivism, praxeology and the sociologies of knowledge and culture. ‘Doing migration’ starts with the processes of social attribution that differentiate between ‘migrants’ and ‘non-migrants’. Embedded in institutional, organizational and interactional routines these attributions generate unique social orders of migration. By illustrating these conceptual ideas, the article provides insights into the elements of the contemporary European order of ‘migration’. Its institutional routines contribute to the emergence of a European migration regime that involves narratives of economization, securitization and humanitarization. The organizational routines of the European migration order involve surveillance and diversity management, which have disciplining effects on those defined as ‘migrants’. The routines of everyday face-to-face interactions produce various micro-forms of doing ‘migration’ through stigmatization and othering, but they also provide opportunities to resist a social attribution as ‘migrant’.
Die Berichterstattung über den Nahostkonflikt gehört seit Jahrzehnten zum Standardrepertoire der Nachrichten. Hierzulande hat fast jeder eine Meinung zum israelisch-arabischen Konflikt, doch wenige verstehen, um was es den Konfliktparteien eigentlich geht, was in bisherigen Verhandlungen erreicht worden ist und wo genau die Hürden für eine Konfliktregelung liegen. Dieses Buch liefert eine kompakte und zugleich anschauliche und detaillierte Analyse des Konflikts zwischen Israel und seinen arabischen Nachbarn. Dabei stehen die lokalen und regionalen Akteure im Mittelpunkt. Um die Konfliktdynamiken zu erklären, geht das Buch vor allem auf die konkurrierenden Interessen und Narrative der Konfliktparteien sowie ihre Wechselwirkungen ein.
nvestor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes between foreign investors and host-states. Seemingly a technical issue in private international law, ISDS procedures have recently become a matter of public concern and the target of political resistance, due to the power they grant to foreign investors in matters of public policies in the countries they invest in. This article examines the practice of ISDS through the lenses of liberal-statist theories of international justice, which value self-determination. It argues that the investor-state arbitration system illustrates how liberal-statist theories of international distributive justice ought to care about relative socioeconomic disadvantage, contra the sufficiency principle that they typically defend. The sufficiency principle draws on a questionable conception of the freedom that self-determination consists in.
From reparations for slavery to international racial justice: a critical republican perspective
(2017)
This paper focuses on demands for reparations for colonial slavery and their public reception in France. It argues that this bottom-up, context-sensitive approach to theorising reparations enables us to formulate a critical republican theory of international racial justice. It contrasts the critical republican perspective on reparations with a nation-state centred approach in which reparations activists are accused of threatening the French republic’s sense of homogeneity and unity, thus undermining the national narrative on the French identity. It also rejects the liberal egalitarian perspective, which itself rejects reparations in favour of focusing on present disadvantages. In so doing, this paper illustrates how the notion of non-domination offers a superior way of conceptualising global racial injustices compared to more traditional distributive outlooks.
This paper reviews social network analysis (SNA) as a method to be utilized in biographical research which is a novel contribution. We argue that applying SNA in the context of biography research through standardized data collection as well as visualization of networks can open up participants’ interpretations of relations throughout their lives, and allow a creative and innovative way of data collection that is responsive to participants’ own meanings and associations while allowing the researchers to conduct systematical data analysis. The paper discusses the analytical potential of SNA in biographical research, where the efficacy of this method is critically discussed, together with its limitations, and its potential within the context of biographical research.
Many theories of global distributive justice are based on the assumption that all humans hold common ownership of the earth. As the earth is finite and our actions interconnect, we need a system of justice that regulates the potential appropriation of the common earth to ensure fairness. According to these theories, imposing limits and distributive obligations on private and public property arrangements may be the best mechanism for governing common ownership. We present a critique of the assumption that this issue can be solved within the private–public property regime, arguing that the boundaries of this regime should not be taken for granted and that the growing literature on the democratic commons movement suggests how this can be accomplished. We consider that, if the earth is defined as a common, the private– public property paradigm must be open to questioning, and democratic commoners’ activities should be considered.
How do coalition governments affect the risk of civil war onset in ethnically divided societies? Existing research argues that power-sharing coalitions decrease the risk of civil war because they redress grievances. Building on a formal model of coalition formation, we predict that ethnic elites are most likely to form oversized rather than minimum-winning coalitions in anticipation of future challenges to the regime. Put differently, we expect most power-sharing to occur where the risk of regime-threatening civil war is highest...