Search

Vor dem Hintergrund des nunmehr auch im deutschsprachigen Raum gestiegenen politikwissenschaftlichen Interesses an Polarforschung identifiziert dieser Beitrag aus drei Perspektiven Forschungsstränge, von denen Impulse für einen intensivierten Austausch zwischen politik- und naturwissenschaftlicher Polarforschung ausgehen könnten: die Makroperspektive nimmt Dynamiken und Regulierung des Erdsystems in den Blick; die Mesoperspektive die Organisation von Beziehungen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in institutionellen Designs und Prozessen; die Mikroperspektive schließlich das Zusammenspiel verschiedener Akteure bei der Politikgestaltung und -implementation., Against the backdrop of an increased interest in polar research within German political science this contribution takes three perspectives to identify some thematic strands that appear promising for an intensified exchange between political science and the natural sciences in polar research: a macro-perspective focuses on dynamics and regulation in the Earth-System; a meso-perspective on the relations between science and policy in institutional designs and processes; a micro-perspective on the interaction of different actors in policy-shaping and -implementation.

What does it mean to be responsible in and for the Arctic? This article addresses this question, noting that responsibility has become a core policy norm in different governance areas in recent decades. The article contributes to the current debate on responsibility in global politics, arguing that one should consider not only who is responsible (and what for) but also the capability foundations upon which responsibility is exercised, as well as the underlying normativity of this practice. Instead of only focusing on capabilities as first principles from which responsibilities arise, this article suggests approaching responsibility as a web of relations. On the basis of this theoretical discussion the article turns to two cases of contemporary Arctic policy where we can observe responsibility ‘at work’. The fields of search and rescue and sustainable development are both marked by a cooperative approach among (state and non-state) parties, whose interactions centre on a particular ethical understanding of responsibility rather than on power-oriented politics. Yet each policy field contains specific dilemmas, as Arctic governance is characterised by a web of responsibility that comprises multiple subjects in charge and/or objects for which they are responsible.

What does responsibility mean in international relations (IR)? This handbook brings together cutting-edge research on the critical debates about responsibility that are currently being undertaken in IR theory. This handbook both reflects upon an emerging field based on an engagement in the most crucial theoretical debates and serves as a foundational text by showing how deeply a discussion of responsibility is embedded in broader questions of IR theory and practice. Contributions cover the way in which responsibility is theorized across different approaches in IR and relevant neighboring disciplines and demonstrate how responsibility matters in different policy fields of global governance. Chapters with an empirical focus zoom in on particular actor constellations of (emerging) states, international organizations, political movements, or corporations, or address how responsibility matters to structure the politics of global commons, such as oceans, resources or the Internet. Providing a comprehensive overview of IR scholarship on responsibility, this accessible and interdisciplinary text will be a valuable resource for scholars and students in many fields including IR, international law, political theory, global ethics, science and technology, area studies, development studies, business ethics and environmental and security governance.

The opening chapter lays out the conceptual groundwork for respective historical, practical and theoretical case studies across three governance areas in which responsibility has become a core focal point of policymaking over the course of the last three decades: security, environmental, and business governance. Researching the rise of responsibility requires engaging with the simultaneity of formal and informal accountability mechanisms, questions of morality and ethics, and the relations that this practice establishes between a variety of actors in global politics. The general framework of the book holds that moral agency is socially embedded, which paves the way for inquiring into how the normativity of policies plays out in interaction on the ground, particularly in so-termed communities of responsibility. Three results of the case studies stand out: first, there are parallel developments between governance fields, especially the increased formalisation of responsibility in multilateral treaties; second, the observation that responsibility often constituted a compromise in negotiations between states and non-state actors; and third, reliance on human rights as a common point of reference.

How do we account for norm (non-)compliance in complex situations of global governance? Instead of emphasising power and diverging interests, this research note develops an innovative framework by arguing for a need to account for the social foundation of norms and the processes of norm contestation among relevant stakeholders. It comprises three crucial elements: first, the relevant stakeholders that form around specific policies; second, the types of knowledge about the policy object at stake; and finally, the knowledge gaps across stakeholders and their strategies to overcome them. Based on these considerations, we advance a framework of three pillars of ‘vested interests’, ‘vice’ and ‘virtue’: given, first, the diversity of stakeholders in policy-making and their vested interests, we assume, secondly, an increased likelihood for norm contestation. For some this constitutes a vice. However, we argue, thirdly, that open deliberation has the potential to lead to positive implications for governance arrangements and is therefore a virtue for norm compliance. Applying this framework to the example of the use of outer space, we show how our approach can address what we call the ‘lasting reality’ of global governance, namely the regular confrontation of culturally embedded normativity that stems from the increased diversity of actors in the global realm.

The volume closes by setting out an agenda for further research that follows from the findings of the case studies in three governance areas of security, environmental, and business governance. Based on the findings, we argue that responsibility should be considered as a methodological tool for scholars of global politics as it bridges the gap between politics, law, and ethics. The role of ethics in particular deserves further engagement, and responsibility as a category of practice provides a suitable approach towards this end. As the literature on ‘virtue ethics’ has highlighted, neither universal benchmarks nor a reliance on consequentialist arguments offer suitable leverage for analysis for communities and norms that develop and are maintained in practice. Rather, it is through an engagement with practices of knowledge creation and embedded ethics of the actors involved that we can shed light on the workings of global politics. Virtue ethics may be used for a critical and emancipatory research agenda that could be expanded to look into, for instance, global North-South relations or non-Western governance proposals.

The article develops a geopoetic approach to Russian Arctic politics. It rests on the empirical observation that due to climate change, the Arctic landscape is undergoing profound transformations, which has led to multilateral governance efforts but also unilateral pursuits. In this general heterogeneity, Russia’s policies have raised the most pressing questions regarding the country’s motivations to engage in the region. Cultural approaches to global politics are most suitable to create holistic understandings and explanations in this regard, but they lack discussing a spatial dimension of Russian identity. By developing a geopoetic account, the article complements this research through methodological insights from critical geography. Geopoetics focuses on the cultural roots and their cognitive-emotional dimension, on the basis of which claims to the Arctic and related policies resonate with a broader audience. The article argues that Russian policies have their foundation in a utopian ideal of Soviet socialist realism that was widely popularised in the 1920s and later decades. Applying the hermeneutic tool of topos, the article highlights that three features stand out that interweave into a coherent imaginary of the Arctic: first, the heroic explorer; second, the conquest of nature; and third, the role of science and technology. Analysts would do well to bear in mind how the Arctic becomes intelligible when commenting on policies.

Die Forderung nach »kritischer« Normenforschung in den IB durch Engelkamp et al. und Deitelhoff/Zimmermann aufgreifend, pladieren wir dafur, mithilfe eines kritisch-konstruktivistischen Forschungsprogramms uber eine poststrukturalistische Perspektive hinauszugehen, die lediglich hegemoniale Strukturen hinterfragt. Normenforschung muss »kritisch« bleiben – hier stimmen wir mit den vorangegangenen Beitragen in der ZIB uberein. Gelingen kann dies jedoch nur, wenn beforschte Akteurinnen und Akteure vor einer normativen Bewertung der Forschenden zunachst fur sich selbst sprechen konnen und ihren Artikulationen weder theoretisch noch methodologisch vorgegriffen wird. In Anlehnung an kritisch-konstruktivistische Forschung schlagen wir daher eine induktive Forschungsstrategie vor, die genau dies ermoglicht und dabei die doppelte Hermeneutik forschungspraktisch umsetzt. Gelingt dies, wird lokalen Akteurinnen und Akteuren agency zugestanden und sie sprechen fur sich selbst. Dann erst ist (Normen-)Forschung kritisch. Empirisch illustriert der Artikel eine solche Forschungsstrategie anhand einer rekonstruktiven Analyse des meaning-in-use der Normen »Freiheit« und »Gleichberechtigung« anhand der Reaktionen auf die Protestaktionen von FEMEN in der WANA-Region.

This article reconstructs governance practices related to blood policy that have developed within in the European Union (EU) over the last 15 years. It describes core aspects of the policy and argues that, despite an integrated cooperative approach between policy-makers and practitioners, this policy remains an open and evolving process. The European Blood Directive (2002/ 98/EC) and its subsequent directives managed, for the first time, to create an overarching framework for transfusion procedures. This framework consists of a number of standard definitions as well as detailed standard operating procedures, yet leaves room for interpretation and different practices between EU member states. A recently published report on the progress of transposition of the Directives into national legislation reveals different standards, suggesting a lack of uniformity of safety and quality requirements. Further, gaps in the directives amount to practical medical problems, while increased mobility among EU citizens may add further problems to achieving the objective of a self-sufficient supply of blood and blood products. This might undermine public confidence in the quality of blood products and the health protection of donors, which, in turn, must be countered by a cooperative effort of policy-makers and blood establishments.

This article proposes to apply a praxeological approach to study contemporary constitutionalism. The approach is conceptualized following critical constructivist research on constitutionalism that focuses on experience and expectation when studying the contested meaning of norms in international relations. It argues that the concept of memory offers an important view on the language-based concept of experience which extends beyond the confines of behavioural approaches that study habitual change with regard to norms. The article offers a conceptual discussion of approaches to constitutionalism, emphasizing the distinction between modern and contemporary constitutionalism and their respective foci on regulatory versus cultural practices, introduces a praxeological dimension of horizons and elaborates on political memory and myth as concepts of functional memory.