<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Collection: Discussion Papers, Abteilung Global Governance, WZB</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/49542</link>
    <description />
    <textInput>
      <title>The Collection's search engine</title>
      <description>Search the Channel</description>
      <name>search</name>
      <link>http://www.econstor.eu/simple-search</link>
    </textInput>
    <item>
      <title>The politicisation of European Treaty Reform: Public justification and party polarisation in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons debates over revision of the EU treaties</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/70785</link>
      <description>Title: The politicisation of European Treaty Reform: Public justification and party polarisation in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons debates over revision of the EU treaties
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Wendler, Frank
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: The thesis that European integration has become politicised has prompted a major debate in comparative political science and research on the EU. This debate nevertheless remains inconclusive with regard to links between the objects and thematic focal points of EU controversies (justification dimension) and the patterns of polarisation between political parties arising within these debates (interaction dimension). This paper seeks to explore these links through an analysis of parliamentary debates between 2005 and 2009 in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons over revision of the EU treaties. The results of analysis suggest that disaggregating the various aspects related to the institutional reform of the EU helps to shed light on the different variants of political contention arising in public debates about Europe. It is shown that the democratic legitimisation of European integration in particular prompts relatively strong and atypical patterns of party polarisation, whereas questions concerning the political goals and action capacity of the EU are more consensual and appear to be more domesticated in the sense of being debated within the established patterns of domestic party politics.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The politicisation of European Treaty Reform: Public justification and party polarisation in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons debates over revision of the EU treaties</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/70785</link>
      <description>Title: The politicisation of European Treaty Reform: Public justification and party polarisation in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons debates over revision of the EU treaties
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Wendler, Frank
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: The thesis that European integration has become politicised has prompted a major debate in comparative political science and research on the EU. This debate nevertheless remains inconclusive with regard to links between the objects and thematic focal points of EU controversies (justification dimension) and the patterns of polarisation between political parties arising within these debates (interaction dimension). This paper seeks to explore these links through an analysis of parliamentary debates between 2005 and 2009 in the German Bundestag and UK House of Commons over revision of the EU treaties. The results of analysis suggest that disaggregating the various aspects related to the institutional reform of the EU helps to shed light on the different variants of political contention arising in public debates about Europe. It is shown that the democratic legitimisation of European integration in particular prompts relatively strong and atypical patterns of party polarisation, whereas questions concerning the political goals and action capacity of the EU are more consensual and appear to be more domesticated in the sense of being debated within the established patterns of domestic party politics.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Problem perception and public expectations in international institutions: Evidence from a German representative survey</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57770</link>
      <description>Title: Problem perception and public expectations in international institutions: Evidence from a German representative survey
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Much of what can be subsumed under the label of political cosmopolitanism argues that some internationalization of political authority is desirable because of the superior capability of international institutions in solving transnational problems. Surprisingly, however, few scholars have asked whether ordinary citizens share this way of thinking. To address this question, falsifiable hypotheses about the quality and scope conditions of such a public political cosmopolitanism are derived from the literature and tested using the results of a representative survey of German citizens. I show that there is significant support for what I call the interdependence model of cosmopolitan politicization: German citizens' perception of transnational interdependencies (in terms of functional sensitivity as well as moral commitments) fosters beliefs in the capability of international institutions to solve problems. This model has significant explanatory power over different levels of education, and thus disproves a common claim that cognitive mobilization is a crucial scope condition of cosmopolitan politicization. Remarkably, however, the relationships specified by the interdependence model are only marginally moderated by German citizens' sense of their own vulnerability, i.e. their beliefs that the national government is incapable of solving such problems.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Internationale Organisationen und der Schutz fundamentaler Rechte von Individuen: Skizze eines Forschungsprojekts</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57769</link>
      <description>Title: Internationale Organisationen und der Schutz fundamentaler Rechte von Individuen: Skizze eines Forschungsprojekts
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Heupel, Monika; Zürn, Michael
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;Abstract: Internationale Organisationen greifen insbesondere seit dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts verstärkt in innergesellschaftliche Prozesse ein und treten immer öfter in direkte Herrschaftsbeziehungen mit Individuen. Die Einsätze zum Aufbau politischer Strukturen in Nachkriegsgesellschaften sind hierfür das augenfälligste Beispiel. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung kam es zur Verletzung von Menschenrechten direkt durch internationale Organisationen. Als besonders gravierende Beispiele gelten die Fälle sexuellen Missbrauchs im Kontext von Friedensmissionen der UNO. Es wird zudem behauptet, dass es auch im Rahmen der Strukturanpassungsprogramme des IWF und der Weltbank zu Menschenrechtsverletzungen gekommen sei. Direkte Herrschaftsbeziehungen führen freilich auch umgekehrt dazu, dass normative Ansprüche hinsichtlich des Schutzes grundlegender Rechte direkt an internationale Organisationen herangetragen werden. In dem geplanten Projekt wollen wir deshalb der Frage nachgehen, wann internationale Organisationen diese Ansprüche anerkennen und Verfahren einrichten, mit denen der Schutz von Menschenrechten gewährleistet werden kann. Konkret soll untersucht werden, unter welchen Bedingungen internationale Organisationen auf den Vorwurf, eine ihrer Politiken verletze Menschenrechte, mit der Einrichtung entsprechender Verfahren reagieren. Dabei soll es vor allem darum gehen, Kausalmechanismen und deren Rahmenbedingungen zu identifizieren und zu gewichten. Außerdem wollen wir Erkenntnisse darüber gewinnen, ob entsprechende Reformen internationaler Organisationen als Ausdruck der Etablierung einer neuen generellen Norm angesehen werden können. Das Projekt soll einen Beitrag zur Forschung über die neuen Funktionsweisen internationaler Institutionen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung leisten. Zudem soll es zur Weiterentwicklung der Forschung zur Diffusion von Normen im Allgemeinen und von Menschenrechts- und rule of law-Normen im Speziellen beitragen, indem die Möglichkeit sowohl einer vertikalen Diffusion von Normen auf die internationale Ebene als auch der horizontalen Diffusion von Normen auf der internationalen Ebene diskutiert wird.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:58:59 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

