1,721,120 research outputs found
Stephan Leibfried / Michael Zürn (Hrsg.), Transformationen des Staates? Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2006, 355 S., kt., 19,80 €
No full textKoch M. Stephan Leibfried / Michael Zürn (Hrsg.), Transformationen des Staates? Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2006, 355 S., kt., 19,80 €. Soziologische Revue. 2010;33(3):367-370
Eine Entzweiung. Theodor Mommsen und Heinrich von Treitschke
Full text linkStephan Leibfried, Christoph Markschies, Ernst Osterkamp, Günter Stoc
Multi-level legitimacy: conceptualizing legitimacy relationships between the EU and national democracies
Full text linkThis paper deals with the ways in which the interconnectedness of multiple political levels in increaingly internationalized structures of governance impacts on these levels' democratic legitimation. Focusing on the European Union (EU), it argues that in the EU's multi-level system, the legitimacy of the European level of governance is systematically influenced by the legitimacy of the EU Member States. Insights into such legitimacy relationships - and different logics of their construction - can be used to identify a number of distinct legitimation strategies for EU institutions, and to sketch some options of institutional design that might help to implement them. It is unclear, however, to what extent any kind of institutional design can actually affect the citizens' empirical legitimacy evaluations of the EU, since these are often characterized by a lack of information about the EU's institutional structure. --
Transformations of the state: from monopolist to manager of political authority
Full text linkSince the second half of the twentieth century, the gradual nationalization of political authority that was typical for much of the State's history since the seventeenth century has come to a standstill and given way to the denationalization of political authority. Non-state actors acquire political authority, thus giving rise to a complex network of political authorities, in which the State is only one authority among others. Yet, the denationalization of political authority remains fragmentary and incomplete. No non-state authority, be it an international institution, a rivate business or transnational organization, has the capacity to supplant the State. In fact, they all remain reliant on the State because only the State can provide the complementary resources that non-state actors lack to exercise political authority effectively and legitimately. For this reason, the State remains the key body of authority despite denationalization and the accretion of political authority by non-state entities. Its role has hanged, however. The State no longer exercises authority always directly and exclusively through its own powers and resources, but more and more indirectly, by providing and complementing the powers and resources of non-state actors. The state remains the central authority but its role is transforming: once monopolist, the state is now becoming a manager of political authority -- Seit den 1970er Jahren kommt es zu einer Trendwende: weg von der Verstaatlichung von Herrschaft hin zu deren Entstaatlichung. Nicht-staatliche Akteure üben in wachsendem Maße politische Herrschaft aus. Dadurch entsteht ein komplexes Geflecht aus Herrschaftsstrukturen, in denen der Staat nur noch ein Herrschaftsträger unter anderen ist. Diese Entstaatlichung bleibt jedoch bruchstückhaft und unvollständig. Kein nicht-staatlicher Herrschaftsträger, weder internationale Institutionen, noch private Akteure oder transnationale Organisationen haben die Herrschaftsressourcen, um den Staat zu verdrängen und in seiner Rolle als Herrschaftsmonopolist zu beerben. Vielmehr bleiben sie auf den Staat angewiesen, weil nur er die komplementären Herrschaftsbeiträge leisten kann, die sie brauchen, um effektiv und legitim Herrschaft ausüben zu können. Der Staat bleibt deshalb auch unter den Bedingungen der Entstaatlichung die zentrale Herrschaftsinstanz, nur seine Rolle ändert sich: er mutiert vom Herrschaftsmonopolisten zum Herrschaftsmanager
Humanvermögen: Eine neue Kategorie der Sozialstaatstheorie
No full textKaufmann F-X. Humanvermögen: Eine neue Kategorie der Sozialstaatstheorie. In: Obinger H, Rieger E, eds. Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit in entwickelten Demokratien: Herausforderungen, Reformen und Perspektiven. Festschrift für Stephan Leibfried. Schriften des Zentrums für Sozialpolitik, 20. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus; 2009: 95-118
Transformations of the State
Full text linkSince the second half of the twentieth century, the gradual nationalization of political authority that was typical for much of the State’s history since the seventeenth century has come to a standstill and given way to the denationalization of political authority. Non-state actors acquire political authority, thus giving rise to a complex network of political authorities, in which the State is only one authority among others. Yet, the denationalization of political authority remains fragmentary and incomplete. No non-state authority, be it an international institution, a private business or transnational organization, has the capacity to supplant the State. In fact, they all remain reliant on the State because only the State can provide the complementary resources that non-state actors lack to exercise political authority effectively and legitimately. For this reason, the State remains the key body of authority despite denationalization and the accretion of political authority by non-state entities. Its role has changed, however. The State no longer exercises authority always directly and exclusively through its own powers and resources, but more and more indirectly, by providing and complementing the powers and resources of non-state actors. The state remains the central authority but its role is transforming: once monopolist, the state is now becoming a manager of political authority
Kampf um Souveränität? Eine Kontroverse zur europäischen Integration nach dem Lissabon-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts
Full text linkDer vorliegende Beitrag dokumentiert eine Kontroverse, die auf dem Kieler DVPW-Kongress im September 2009 im Rahmen einer Podiumsdiskussion ausgetragen wurde. Mit seinem Lissabon-Urteil vom Juni 2009 fällte das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht ein Grundsatzurteil zur deutschen Beteiligung an der europäischen Integration. Das Gericht erklärte das deutsche Begleitgesetz zum Lissabon-Vertrag für verfassungswidrig, weil es die Beteiligung von Bundestag und Bundesrat als unzureichend ansah. Zudem kündigte das Gericht eine verstärkte verfassungsrechtliche Prüfung der deutschen Anwendbarkeit europäischer Rechtsakte an (Ultra-vires-Kontrolle und Identitätskontrolle). Stephan Leibfried, Marcus Höreth, Martin Höpner, Fritz W. Scharpf und Michael Zürn diskutieren das Urteil im Hinblick auf seine Implikationen für den künftigen Integrationsprozess, für die Handlungsfähigkeit der nationalen und supranationalen
Organe, für die Demokratiequalität im europäischen Mehrebenensystem sowie für politökonomische Problemstellungen.
The article documents a panel debate held at the Kiel congress of the German Political Science Association (DVPW) in September 2009. With its Lisbon judgment passed in June 2009, the German Federal Constitutional Court delivered a groundbreaking decision on Germany’s involvement in the European integration process. The Court ruled that the German accompanying law (Begleitgesetz) violated the national constitution because it did not guarantee sufficient parliamentary involvement. Furthermore, the Court announced its intention to intensify
the constitutional control of the national applicability of European legal acts (the ultra vires control
and the identity control). Stephan Leibfried, Marcus Höreth, Martin Höpner, Fritz W. Scharpf and Michael Zürn discuss the judgment with respect to its implications for the further integration process, for the national and supranational capacities to act, for the democratic quality in the European multilevel system and for political-economic problems
- …
