|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
086526
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Frankfurt, PEace Research Institute, 2008.
|
| Description |
36p.
|
| Standard Number |
9783937829784
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054109 | 947.5/DEM 054109 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134066
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The involvement of civil society organizations (CSOs) is widely regarded by students of the EU's domestic policy fields as enhancing transparency and accountability and, more generally, the democratic quality of political processes. This article explores the contribution of CSOs to the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy and assesses whether a democracy-enhancing effect of their involvement can also be demonstrated for this policy field. We analyse the contribution of CSOs based on two common models of democracy: the intergovernmental and the supranational model of democracy. We find that CSOs are indeed quite actively involved in the EU's security policy. With regard to their democracy-enhancing effects, however, our findings are rather mixed. While the engagement of CSOs does provide a remedy for the democratic deficits associated with intergovernmental decision-making, these organizations do not fully meet the demands posed by supranational governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107161
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The fact that democracies maintain peaceful relations with each other is regarded as one of the few law-like correlations in international relations, but the causes of this empirical phenomenon remain contested. This paper tries to fill this theoretical gap by attributing the remarkable stability between democracies to inter-democratic institutions. At the same time, it contributes to the debate on the need to differentiate among international organizations in order to assess their peace-building effects. We identify transnational and trans-governmental linkages as crucial features that distinguish inter-democratic from traditional institutions with non-democratic or mixed membership. In order to explain these institutions' peace-building effect, we analyze the impact of international institutions on rivalry mitigation with a view to five pairs of states: France-Germany, Greece-Turkey, Argentina-Brazil, Indonesia-Malaysia, and Japan-South Korea. Those dyads all look back at a history of rivalry, conflict, and mutual threat perceptions, and they are located in highly institutionalized regional settings but vary with regard to their political regime type. The controlled comparison of cases demonstrates that the embeddedness of international institutions in transnational and trans-governmental linkages corresponds to each member's regime type and that these institutional differences are responsible for the varying extent of rivalry mitigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
054532
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Frankfurt, Peace Research Institue Frankfurt, 1990.
|
| Description |
37p.
|
| Series |
PRIF Report; no.13
|
| Standard Number |
392619779X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 041439 | 41439/DEM 041439 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
169244
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article offers a much-needed impulse to the debate on humanitarian military interventions, which is characterized by conceptual confusion and a lack of comparative research. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, we identify the most important definitional controversies and discuss the conceptual pros and cons of the respective positions. We illustrate how definitional choices affect comparative research using a new dataset covering all humanitarian military interventions since the Second World War. Classic definitions based on ideal types might have normative merits, but they cannot ground an empirical research programme because they vacate the universe of cases. However, military interventions for declared humanitarian purposes are here to stay, and they should be analysed instead of defined into oblivion. Thus, the definition should reflect the practice of humanitarian military interventions, not subordinate the humanitarian purpose to violations of sovereignty and international law. The definition must not be restricted to interventions reacting to death tolls that ‘shock the conscience of mankind’; it must also consider interventions in the early stages of conflict. Moreover, military interventions should not be disregarded when the humanitarian motive is not exclusive or predominant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
165909
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Complaints about “double standards” in global governance are widespread. When governments from the Global South criticize powerful Western states for applying double standards in implementing norms such as international criminal justice, this is usually taken to indicate that they disagree with the substance of these norms. In contrast, this article argues that the criticism can also be understood as expressing dissatisfaction with the procedures for applying those norms. Based on insights from empirical justice research in social psychology, the article highlights the significance of procedural fairness for the legitimacy of institutions and illustrates the importance of concerns about procedural unfairness in recent complaints about the International Criminal Court (ICC) by African governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
132056
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Regional security arrangements play a central role in modifying emerging norms as they travel from the global to the local level. This process of norm localization is shaped by various factors such as the characteristics of regional security cultures, corresponding resonance with the emerging norm, institutional voice opportunities, and mechanisms of framing and pruning as they are utilized by norm entrepreneurs. The article applies this analytical framework to the localization of the responsibility to protect (R2P) norm by the African Union and the European Union. Subsequently, the paper examines how localization of the R2P norm in both regions affected their reactions to the Libyan crisis in 2011. It also examines the likely ramifications that the intervention may have on the future reception of the R2P by African and European actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
118565
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Frankfurt, PRIF, 2012.
|
| Description |
32p.
|
| Series |
PRIF Report No.115
|
| Standard Number |
9783942532457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057128 | 355.357096/DEM 057128 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
086775
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Frankfurt, Peace Research Institute frankfurt, 2000.
|
| Description |
iii, 69p.
|
| Standard Number |
3933293383
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 043691 | 327.73/KUB 043691 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 043700 | 327.73/KUB 043700 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|