<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>EconStor Collection:</title>
    <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/49542</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2026-04-28T10:15:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Business authority in global governance: Beyond public and private</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/265308</link>
      <description>Title: Business authority in global governance: Beyond public and private
Authors: Mende, Janne
Abstract: This paper discusses the concept of authority in global governance by unpacking the components that characterize its various notions. These components are the triadic relationship between power, legitimacy, and the reference to public interests, and how they are embedded in the constellation between public and private. After clarifying each of these components, the article applies them to business enterprises - key actors in global governance -, focusing on the issue area of business and human rights. The paper shows that business authority does not neatly fit into the public-private distinction that is pervasive in conceptions of global governance and the international human rights regime. Instead, businesses have public and private, as well as hybrid, roles in global governance. Business authority then forms a peculiar third, next to public authority and private authority. Accordingly, the paper suggests extending the two-pole constellation of public and private into a three-pole constellation, with business building a peculiar third position between and beyond the public and the private. This approach allows furthering the understanding of business authority in global governance in particular and the concept of authority in global governance more generally.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/265308</guid>
      <dc:date>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/233472</link>
      <description>Title: Managing regime complexity: Introducing the interface conflicts 1.0 dataset
Authors: Fuß, Julia; Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian; Saravia, Andrés; Zürn, Michael
Abstract: The increasing density and entanglement of international law and institutions leads to a growing potential for collisions between norms and rules emanating from different international institutions. It is an open question, however, when actors actually create manifest conflicts about overlapping norms and rules and how - and with what consequences - such conflicts are handled. We therefore utilize the concept of "interface conflicts" in which two or more actors express positional differences over the scope or prevalence of different international norms. Building on the findings of the DFG research group OSAIC (Overlapping Spheres of Authority and Interface Conflicts), we introduce the Interface Conflicts 1.0 dataset, which assembles information on 78 interface conflicts. The dataset provides information on the actors and norms at stake in interface conflicts and focuses specifically on their subsequent handling. It distinguishes co-operative from non-cooperative conflict management, and codes the institutional as well as distributional outcomes of all management efforts. Drawing on the Interface Conflicts 1.0 dataset, the paper discusses first descriptive statistics regarding the bones of contention in interface conflicts, distributions across types of conflict management, and conflict management effects on the legal and institutional arrangements in the areas at stake. We thus contribute empirical building blocks to debates about global (dis)order and open new avenues for future research.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2021 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/233472</guid>
      <dc:date>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>China's new multilateral institutions: A framework and research agenda</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/216211</link>
      <description>Title: China's new multilateral institutions: A framework and research agenda
Authors: Stephen, Matthew D.
Abstract: China has recently taken the lead in fostering several new multilateral initiatives which mirror the policy tasks of existing institutions. This article provides a framework for studying such 'parallel institutions' and sketches an emerging research agenda. First, it provides an empirical overview of China's new institutions. Second, it defines parallel institutions and provides analytical categories for describing types of parallel institutions and integrating them into existing IR theory. This centers on a typology of relationships between parallel institutions and incumbent institutions, which can be reinforcing, complementary, substitutive, or competing. Third, it examines explanations for parallel institution building. Fourth, it considers the implications of parallel institutions in the context of an international power shift.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/216211</guid>
      <dc:date>2020-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>To fight or to vote: Sovereignty referendums as strategies in conflicts over self-determination</title>
      <link>https://hdl.handle.net/10419/214650</link>
      <description>Title: To fight or to vote: Sovereignty referendums as strategies in conflicts over self-determination
Authors: Kelle, Friederike Luise; Sienknecht, Mitja
Abstract: Subnational groups employ a variety of strategies to contest governments. While democratic states offer a broader array of accessible options, autocratic regimes are more difficult to contest via conventional means. Why do subnational groups stage sovereignty referendums across regime types? Our argument is that public votes over greater autonomy or independence signal adherence to international democratic norms and the legitimacy of the demand towards three audiences: the state, the domestic population, and the international community. Self-determination groups seek to gain support from their domestic constituency as well as the international community in order to pressure the state government into granting concessions. We introduce a new dataset of referendums and international diplomacy by subnational self-determination groups on a global scale between 1990 and 2015. We supplement the descriptive evidence and assess the plausibility of the proposed mechanism with an out-of-sample case of an in-sample observation, the 2017 independence referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan. We show that referendums are indeed associated with international diplomacy and domestic state building by self-determination groups, suggesting that both tools are critical for the choice of conventional strategies across regime types.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/214650</guid>
      <dc:date>2020-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

