Operations of the Global – Explorations of Dis/Connectivity
6th-8th October 2011
organized by:
Prof. Dr. Urs Stäheli
Dr. Sven Opitz
Ute Tellmann, PhD
How to Think the Global?
Recent debates on globalization have challenged the idea of the globe as a pre-existing and all-encompassing entity. The focus has turned towards different and situated modes of doing globalization. This conference suggests understanding the global as the effect of particular, fragmented and material operations. We seek to explore and compare different forms of dis/connectivity. Finance, diplomacy, law, consumption, transport and migration depend for their global reach on specific forms of connectivity. While finance is tied by networks of information; global commodity chains depend on logistical organization of space. Where political and legal norms travel by citation and standardization, security measures enlist contagious logics of affect. Each form of connectivity is constitutively linked to different materialities and media and is characterized by different temporalities and intensities. At this conference we will ask how different materialities and logics of connectivity intertwine. How do these modes differ in terms of density, speed and diffusion? How can we theorize the materiality of these connective links? Are there tipping points that turn connectivity into disconnectivity?
// Download Program
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Call: 2012 ECPR Joint Session Workshop on The institutions of international society revisited: theory, practice, performativity
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2012
University of Antwerp, Belgium
10th - 15th April 2012
http://new.ecprnet.eu/Joint%20Sessions/2012_Antwerp/
Workshop Title: The institutions of international society revisited: theory, practice, performativity
Directors: Jorg KUSTERMANS, jorg.kustermans@ua.ac.be
ANTWERP, University of
Tanja AALBERTS, taalberts@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
LEIDEN, Universiteit
Abstract:
The purpose of this workshop is to re-assess the institutions of international society, as defined by Hedley Bull in the 1970’s, in light of recent theoretical advances in International Relations scholarship, viz. the focus on practice and performance. It will focus on two main issues: (1) which are the institutions of (contemporary) international or world society and how have these institutions evolved? (2) what does the deployment of analytical concepts such as practice and performativity add to our understanding of the institutions of international society, and thus of international society as such? Answers to these questions should yield a theoretical and empirical update of the concept of international society.
To this end, we invite papers that analyse a particular institution of international society (e.g. war, diplomacy, law, or less common entries like colonialism and multilateralism), or that analyse an emerging institution of world society, through the lens of practice and/or performance theory. Papers can be either theory-heavy, empirics-heavy, or evenly balanced, but all should preferably include both components.
University of Antwerp, Belgium
10th - 15th April 2012
http://new.ecprnet.eu/Joint%20Sessions/2012_Antwerp/
Workshop Title: The institutions of international society revisited: theory, practice, performativity
Directors: Jorg KUSTERMANS, jorg.kustermans@ua.ac.be
ANTWERP, University of
Tanja AALBERTS, taalberts@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
LEIDEN, Universiteit
Abstract:
The purpose of this workshop is to re-assess the institutions of international society, as defined by Hedley Bull in the 1970’s, in light of recent theoretical advances in International Relations scholarship, viz. the focus on practice and performance. It will focus on two main issues: (1) which are the institutions of (contemporary) international or world society and how have these institutions evolved? (2) what does the deployment of analytical concepts such as practice and performativity add to our understanding of the institutions of international society, and thus of international society as such? Answers to these questions should yield a theoretical and empirical update of the concept of international society.
To this end, we invite papers that analyse a particular institution of international society (e.g. war, diplomacy, law, or less common entries like colonialism and multilateralism), or that analyse an emerging institution of world society, through the lens of practice and/or performance theory. Papers can be either theory-heavy, empirics-heavy, or evenly balanced, but all should preferably include both components.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
CGG Lecture Series 2011-12 on Global Constitutionalism: Thinking about Justice, Legitimacy and Democracy in Global Terms
The 2011-12 Lecture Series of the Center for Globalization and Governance at the University of Hamburg will focus on Global Constitutionalism: Thinking about Justice, Legitimacy and Democracy in Global Terms
Time and Place:
02.11.2011 – 25.01.2012 WEDNESDAY, 6 – 8 pm
University of Hamburg, Lecture Room K, Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1
Participants: Robert Howse & Ruti G. Teitel, New York University; Richard Bellamy, University College London; Cecelia Lynch, University of California at Irvine; Christoph Möllers, Humboldt Universität Berlin; Neil Walker, University of Edinburgh; Richard Ned Lebow, Darthmouth College
Abstract: The 21st century has brought about a change from merely globalised to constitutionalised international relations. The shift comes with a paradox: While international organisations have undergone processes of constitutionalisation compliance with international law is highly contested. At the same time, most international actors including both states and none-states would be in broad agreement that legitimacy and legality matter in international relations. The paradox has been addressed by lawyers and political scientists from a range of theoretical angles who raised questions about the relationship between different legal orders and the role of international organisations. Specifically, recent studies of global constitutionalism have discussed ways in which the United Nations (UN) can be incorporated into a constitutional order and developed methods to assess the constitutionalisation of international organisations such as the World Trade Union (WTO, the European Union (EU), Mercosur and other. These academic debates are global. They reflect the pressing problem of legitimate governance for politicians and courts as contested UN Security Council decisions inside and outside European and other regional courts demonstrate (compare the debate about the Kadi case and its implications for law and politics). However, despite the wide-ranging interest and the political pressure to fix global problems with the intervening assistance of international institutions, there is little agreement on how to proceed (compare the UN Security Council decision on Libya). The observed change that is brought to the fore by global constitutionalism represents a particular challenge to international relations theory since it involves a distinct constitutional quality in an area not commonly addressed by constitutional theory.
COORDINATION: Professor Antje Wiener, Chair in Political Science and Global Governance, University of Hamburg
Download Program
Time and Place:
02.11.2011 – 25.01.2012 WEDNESDAY, 6 – 8 pm
University of Hamburg, Lecture Room K, Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1
Participants: Robert Howse & Ruti G. Teitel, New York University; Richard Bellamy, University College London; Cecelia Lynch, University of California at Irvine; Christoph Möllers, Humboldt Universität Berlin; Neil Walker, University of Edinburgh; Richard Ned Lebow, Darthmouth College
Abstract: The 21st century has brought about a change from merely globalised to constitutionalised international relations. The shift comes with a paradox: While international organisations have undergone processes of constitutionalisation compliance with international law is highly contested. At the same time, most international actors including both states and none-states would be in broad agreement that legitimacy and legality matter in international relations. The paradox has been addressed by lawyers and political scientists from a range of theoretical angles who raised questions about the relationship between different legal orders and the role of international organisations. Specifically, recent studies of global constitutionalism have discussed ways in which the United Nations (UN) can be incorporated into a constitutional order and developed methods to assess the constitutionalisation of international organisations such as the World Trade Union (WTO, the European Union (EU), Mercosur and other. These academic debates are global. They reflect the pressing problem of legitimate governance for politicians and courts as contested UN Security Council decisions inside and outside European and other regional courts demonstrate (compare the debate about the Kadi case and its implications for law and politics). However, despite the wide-ranging interest and the political pressure to fix global problems with the intervening assistance of international institutions, there is little agreement on how to proceed (compare the UN Security Council decision on Libya). The observed change that is brought to the fore by global constitutionalism represents a particular challenge to international relations theory since it involves a distinct constitutional quality in an area not commonly addressed by constitutional theory.
COORDINATION: Professor Antje Wiener, Chair in Political Science and Global Governance, University of Hamburg
Download Program
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
ZERP Working Paper on "The ICJ and Transnational Law" (Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities)
Andreas Fischer Lescano and Carsten Gericke 2011. The ICJ and Transnational Law: The “Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities” as an Indicator for the Future of the Transnational Legal Order. ZERP-Working Paper 2/2011.
Download from the ZERP Homepage
see also: www.zerp.uni-bremen.de
Abstract:
On 22 December 2008 the Federal Republic of Germany initialized proceedings against the Italian Republic before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. In January 2011 Greece applied for permission to intervene in the case. On 4 July 2011 the ICJ decided that Greece is permitted to intervene as a nonparty in the case, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute. Public hearings in The Hague will take place from 12 to 16 September 2011.
The outcome of this “Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities” is of central significance for the future of the transnational enforcement of human rights insofar as the ICJ decision will determine the role national courts are to play in the enforcement of compensation claims under civil law in the field of “transitional justice.” Consequently, it will also determine how the tension between human rights, on the one hand, and state immunity, on the other, is to be adjusted. If one conceives “transnational law” in the vein of Philip C. Jessup – i.e. as law that breaks with the paradigm of an ius inter gentes, which can be invoked by individuals and which transcends the dualism of national and international law – it can be concluded that the future of transnational law and the leeway for the transnational enforcement strategies of civil societal actors depend significantly on the course of the proceedings in The Hague.
Download from the ZERP Homepage
see also: www.zerp.uni-bremen.de
Abstract:
On 22 December 2008 the Federal Republic of Germany initialized proceedings against the Italian Republic before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. In January 2011 Greece applied for permission to intervene in the case. On 4 July 2011 the ICJ decided that Greece is permitted to intervene as a nonparty in the case, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute. Public hearings in The Hague will take place from 12 to 16 September 2011.
The outcome of this “Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities” is of central significance for the future of the transnational enforcement of human rights insofar as the ICJ decision will determine the role national courts are to play in the enforcement of compensation claims under civil law in the field of “transitional justice.” Consequently, it will also determine how the tension between human rights, on the one hand, and state immunity, on the other, is to be adjusted. If one conceives “transnational law” in the vein of Philip C. Jessup – i.e. as law that breaks with the paradigm of an ius inter gentes, which can be invoked by individuals and which transcends the dualism of national and international law – it can be concluded that the future of transnational law and the leeway for the transnational enforcement strategies of civil societal actors depend significantly on the course of the proceedings in The Hague.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Vacancy: Research Coordinator at the CGG in Hamburg
The Center for Globalization and Governance at the University of Hamburg is seeking a research coordinator (part time). For more information (in German), see http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/institute/cgg/
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Benjamin Faude on the Paradox of Legalization
Benjamin Faude has published a revised version of the paper presented at our section at the 2010 SGIR confernce in the German Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen.
Faude, Benjamin (2011): Paradoxe Verrechtlichtung. Wie Streitschlichtungsmechanismen interagieren. In: Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 18: 1. S. 77-108.
Zusammenfassung:
In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass es zur Erfassung der Verrechtlichung internationaler Politik notwendig ist, auch die inter-institutionellen Implikationen institutionenspezifischer Verrechtlichungsprozesse systematisch zu untersuchen. Daher wird zunächst die Interdependenz von Verrechtlichung und institutioneller Wechselwirkung verdeutlicht. Anschließend wird ein theoretischer Ansatz zur systematischen Analyse institutioneller Wechselwirkung durch Streitschlichtung entwickelt. Mit Hilfe dieses Ansatzes wird anhand von zwei Fallstudien exemplarisch analysiert, wie und mit welchen Folgen sich Streitschlichtungsmechanismen wechselseitig beeinflussen. Es handelt sich dabei um die Streitschlichtungsmechanismen des Nordamerikanischen Freihandelsabkommens (NAFTA) und der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO). Durch das Aufdecken inkonsistenter bzw.
partieller Entscheidungen der beiden Streitschlichtungsmechanismen wird deutlich, dass institutionenspezifische Verrechtlichungsprozesse grundsätzlich die Gefahr in sich bergen, sich in anderen Institutionen vollziehende Verrechtlichungsprozesse zu unterminieren. Im Hinblick auf die Lösung von internationalen Konflikten ist eine Konsequenz der separaten Verrechtlichung in einzelnen internationalen Institutionen paradoxerweise die Gefahr des Rückfalls aus dem regelbasierten Interaktionsmodus im Rahmen der Streitschlichtungsmechanismen in den machtbasierten Interaktionsmodus außerhalb derselben.
Abstract:
In this article it is argued that, in order to grasp the legalization of world politics entirely, it is necessary to investigate the inter-institutional implications of institution-specific processes of legalization. First, the interdependence of legalization and institutional interaction is explicated. Subsequently, a theoretical approach to analyze institutional interaction through Dispute Settlement is developed. Empirically, two case studies demonstrate how and with which consequences the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) mutually influence each other through inconsistent and partial decisions. It becomes clear that institution-specific processes of legalization generally imply the danger of undermining the legalization processes within other institutions. With regard to the resolution of international conflicts, a consequence of the institution-specific legalization is paradoxically the relapse from the rule-based mode of interaction within the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms into the power-based mode of interaction outside the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms.
Faude, Benjamin (2011): Paradoxe Verrechtlichtung. Wie Streitschlichtungsmechanismen interagieren. In: Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 18: 1. S. 77-108.
Zusammenfassung:
In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass es zur Erfassung der Verrechtlichung internationaler Politik notwendig ist, auch die inter-institutionellen Implikationen institutionenspezifischer Verrechtlichungsprozesse systematisch zu untersuchen. Daher wird zunächst die Interdependenz von Verrechtlichung und institutioneller Wechselwirkung verdeutlicht. Anschließend wird ein theoretischer Ansatz zur systematischen Analyse institutioneller Wechselwirkung durch Streitschlichtung entwickelt. Mit Hilfe dieses Ansatzes wird anhand von zwei Fallstudien exemplarisch analysiert, wie und mit welchen Folgen sich Streitschlichtungsmechanismen wechselseitig beeinflussen. Es handelt sich dabei um die Streitschlichtungsmechanismen des Nordamerikanischen Freihandelsabkommens (NAFTA) und der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO). Durch das Aufdecken inkonsistenter bzw.
partieller Entscheidungen der beiden Streitschlichtungsmechanismen wird deutlich, dass institutionenspezifische Verrechtlichungsprozesse grundsätzlich die Gefahr in sich bergen, sich in anderen Institutionen vollziehende Verrechtlichungsprozesse zu unterminieren. Im Hinblick auf die Lösung von internationalen Konflikten ist eine Konsequenz der separaten Verrechtlichung in einzelnen internationalen Institutionen paradoxerweise die Gefahr des Rückfalls aus dem regelbasierten Interaktionsmodus im Rahmen der Streitschlichtungsmechanismen in den machtbasierten Interaktionsmodus außerhalb derselben.
Abstract:
In this article it is argued that, in order to grasp the legalization of world politics entirely, it is necessary to investigate the inter-institutional implications of institution-specific processes of legalization. First, the interdependence of legalization and institutional interaction is explicated. Subsequently, a theoretical approach to analyze institutional interaction through Dispute Settlement is developed. Empirically, two case studies demonstrate how and with which consequences the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) mutually influence each other through inconsistent and partial decisions. It becomes clear that institution-specific processes of legalization generally imply the danger of undermining the legalization processes within other institutions. With regard to the resolution of international conflicts, a consequence of the institution-specific legalization is paradoxically the relapse from the rule-based mode of interaction within the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms into the power-based mode of interaction outside the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
"Der Kampf ums Recht" - Konferenz, 1.-3. September 2011, Universität Wien
"Der Kampf ums Recht": Akteure und Interessen im Blick der interdisziplinären Rechtsforschung. Zweiter Kongress der deutschsprachigen Rechtssoziologie-Vereinigungen, 1.-3. September 2011, Universität Wien
„Alles Recht in der Welt ist erstritten worden“, hielt Rudolf von Jhering 1872 in Wien der seinerzeit unter Juristen weit verbreiteten Auffassung entgegen, das Recht erwachse einem „Volkgeist“ oder der allgemeinen Vernunft. Für Jhering dagegen war „Recht nicht bloßer Gedanke, sondern lebendige Kraft“, und das Ergebnis des Kampfes widerstreitender Interessen und politischer Auseinandersetzungen. Eine Vielzahl von Akteuren kämpft danach um das geltende Recht, manche für den Status Quo, andere für Veränderungen. Der Kampf, so Jhering, ist „die Arbeit des Rechts“, das Recht „kein logischer, sondern […] ein Kraftbegriff“.
more information (in German)
„Alles Recht in der Welt ist erstritten worden“, hielt Rudolf von Jhering 1872 in Wien der seinerzeit unter Juristen weit verbreiteten Auffassung entgegen, das Recht erwachse einem „Volkgeist“ oder der allgemeinen Vernunft. Für Jhering dagegen war „Recht nicht bloßer Gedanke, sondern lebendige Kraft“, und das Ergebnis des Kampfes widerstreitender Interessen und politischer Auseinandersetzungen. Eine Vielzahl von Akteuren kämpft danach um das geltende Recht, manche für den Status Quo, andere für Veränderungen. Der Kampf, so Jhering, ist „die Arbeit des Rechts“, das Recht „kein logischer, sondern […] ein Kraftbegriff“.
more information (in German)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)