Search

Der Artikel gliedert sich nach den drei zentralen Aspekten der Äußerung von Kritik: Der Rolle und Relevanz von Akteuren, der Bedeutung kommunikativer Prozesse und der Notwendigkeit der Identifikation der jeweiligen Arena, in der soziale Sachverhalte aufeinandertreffen und verhandelt werden. Die Zivilgesellschaft ist hierbei ein besonders zentraler Ort der kontinuierlichen Aushandlung dieser Wechselverhältnisse. Sie ist geradezu par excellence durch kommunikationsintensive Prozesse gekennzeichnet, wie etwa die Rolle von Religionsgemeinschaften als Kommunikationsgemeinschaften in ihr illustriert. The article is divided according to the three central aspects of the expression of critique: the role and relevance of actors, the importance of communicative processes and the necessity of the identification of the respective arena, in which social issues are confronted and negotiated. Civil society is an especially central place in the continuous deliberation of these interrelationships. It is exemplary in being marked by intense communicative processes, as is illustrated by the role that religious communities in the form of communities of communication play in its arenas.

This book takes a stand against the narrowing focus of (German) jurisprudence on state law, rooted in the history of the territorially organised nation state. In the shadow of this tradition, state(-hood) law was only conceived of as state law. However, a gradual decoupling of state and law is observable – not least because of globalisation – which inevitably entails a pluralisation of legal regulations. Jurisprudence has to react to this, if it wants to remain relevant. Translated from the German original by Rhodes Barrett.

When speaking of multinormativity, a range of different regulatory regimes and, beyond this, diverse worlds of rules are envisaged. One can only get a hold of these complex phenomena if one looks at them from the perspective of different disciplines and is open to devote oneself to the different languages and vocabularies of these disciplines. Therefore, it is quite plausible to speak of multiple »languages of normativity« when describing and analysing multinormativity. The article attempts this.

Greman Abstract: Das Ziel des Aufsatzes ist, auf die wohlbekannten Phanomene von Selbstverwaltung und Selbstregulierung zu blicken; dabei wird die Governanceperspektive in einer recht ungewohnlichen Weise mit der Perspektive der Rechtsgeschichte verknupft. Ausgangspunkt ist die Beobachtung, dass nahezu jede Gruppe – als ein Kollektiv mit Governancekapazitaten (Governancekollektive) – die Neigung dazu hat, Regeln aufzustellen und ihre eigenen Angelegenheiten zu verwalten. Diese soziologischen Befunde erklaren vielfach das Verhalten lokaler, religioser oder professioneller Gemeinschaften, wie viele Beispiele aus der Rechtsgeschichte zeigen. Diese institutionellen "Figurationen" (Norbert Elias) mussen von neuen Formen der Regelung wie zum Beispiel Verhandlungsstrategien oder dem "kooperativen Staat" oder der sehr erfolgreichen Strategie der "regulierten Selbstregulierung" unterschieden werden; ein zweiter Blick zeigt, dass diese neuen Formen von Governance keine richtigen „Verwandten“ der klassischen Selbstverwaltung sind. Der Aufsatz schliest mit einem Blick auf Selbstverwaltung und Selbstregulierung als institutionellen Ausdrucken eines Zugehorigkeitsgefuhls zu einem lokalen, ethnischen oder religiosen Kollektiv ab.English Abstract: The aim of the paper is to look at the well-known phenomena of self-government and self-regulation, combining in a rather unusual way the governance perspective with the perspective of legal history. Starting point is the observation that nearly every group – as a collective entity with governance capacities (Governancekollektive) – has a tendency to set up rules and to manage its own affairs. These sociological findings explain a lot of the organisational behaviour of local, religious or professional communities, as many examples in legal history show. These institutional “figurations” (Norbert Elias) have to be distinguished from new modes of steering such as bargaining strategies or the “cooperative state” or the quite successful strategy of “regulated self-regulation”; a second glance shows that these new modes of governance are no real “relatives” of classic self-government. The paper concludes by looking at self-government and self-regulation as institutional expressions of a sense of belonging to a local, an ethnic or a religious collective unity.

Liberal democracies have begun to use organizations other than classic public bureaucracies to provide public services. This highly original work is the first to provide a comparative analysis of such organizations in Western Europe. It examines parallels between para-government organizations at the national level, and similar organizations at the municipal and transnational level. It offers a theoretical rationale for para-government organizations in terms of transactional analysis. Why have modern governments adopted such a model of delivering services? What are the problems, limits, and possibilities of providing services thorough this form of organization? What are the similarities and differences in the use of such organizations within Western Europe? Are there parallels between the growth of para-government organizations at the national level and similar developments at both the municipal and transnational levels? This important volume draws on studies of six countries, four cities, and three kinds of transnational organizations to answer these questions. Essential reading for scholars and students of comparative politics, public administration, and Western Europe. "A comprehensive and well-structured book." --Political Studies