The Domination of States: Towards an Inclusive Republican Law of Peoples

The article aims to sharpen the neo-republican contribution to international political thought by challenging Pettit’s view that only representative states may raise a valid claim to non-domination in their external relations. The argument proceeds in two steps: First I show that, conceptually speaking, the domination of states, whether representative or not, implies dominating the collective people at least in its fundamental, constitutive power. Secondly, the domination of states – and thus of their peoples – cannot be justified normatively in the name of promoting individual non-domination because such a compensatory rationale misconceives the notion of domination in terms of a discrete exercise of power instead of as an ongoing power relation. This speaks in favour of a more inclusive law of peoples than Pettit (just as his liberal counterpart Rawls) envisages: In order to accommodate the claim of collective peoples to non-domination it has to recognize every state as a member of the international order

The Domination of States: Towards an Inclusive Republican Law of Peoples

The article aims to sharpen the neo-republican contribution to international political thought by challenging Pettit’s view that only representative states may raise a valid claim to non-domination in their external relations. The argument proceeds in two steps: First I show that, conceptually speaking, the domination of states, whether representative or not, implies dominating the collective people at least in its fundamental, constitutive power. Secondly, the domination of states – and thus of their peoples – cannot be justified normatively in the name of promoting individual non-domination because such a compensatory rationale misconceives the notion of domination in terms of a discrete exercise of power instead of as an ongoing power relation. This speaks in favour of a more inclusive law of peoples than Pettit (just as his liberal counterpart Rawls) envisages: In order to accommodate the claim of collective peoples to non-domination it has to recognize every state as a member of the international order

The Domination of States: Towards an Inclusice Republican Law of Peoples.

Abstract: The article aims to sharpen the neo-republican contribution to international political thought by challenging Pettit’s view that only representative states may raise a valid claim to non-domination in their external relations. The argument proceeds in two steps: First I show that, conceptually speaking, the domination of states, whether representative or not, implies dominating the collective people at least in its fundamental, constitutive power. Secondly, the domination of states – and thus of their peoples – cannot be justified normatively in the name of promoting individual non-domination because such a compensatory rationale misconceives the notion of domination in terms of a discrete exercise of power instead of as an ongoing power relation. This speaks in favour of a more inclusive law of peoples than Pettit (just as his liberal counterpart Rawls) envisages: In order to accommodate the claim of collective peoples to non-domination it has to recognize every state as a member of the international order

Betriebsratsarbeit in logistischen Produktionsketten: Beispiel Automobilindustrie

"Mit der Herausbildung flexibler, kundenorientierter Organisationen in der Automobilindustrie ändert sich die Politik der Betriebsräte. Neue Produktionskonzepte setzen auf kleine, logistisch eng verknüpfte Einheiten. Die Betriebsräte reagieren auf Zergliederung und Auslagerung zunächst defensiv. Die Störanfälligkeit logistischer Ketten zwingt das Management ständig zu mitbestimmungspflichtigen Entscheidungen. Es ist auf die Kooperationsbereitschaft der Betriebsräte angewiesen. Deren Position wird stärker. Ihr Handeln trägt immer deutlicher Züge von Co-Management. Sie suchen die Kooperation mit dem Management, meiden jedoch keinesfalls die Konfrontation. Aber die Fraktalisierung fördert auch unterschiedliche Interessen zwischen den Betriebsräten. Vielerorts fehlt es noch an Methoden damit umzugehen. Hinter der Lösung dieses Problems steht der Aufbau von Kooperationen mit Betriebsräten der Zulieferer zurück." (Autorenreferat)"The role and policies of works councils are changing with the introduction of flexible, customer-oriented structures in the automobile industry. New concepts of production are generally based upon small, logistically connected units. At first, works councils have been reacting defensively to the processes of segmentation and outsourcing. Logistic chains are easily disrupted. In a system of co-determination, many of the necessary decisions can only be taken with the consent of the works council. Management therefore often depends on the works council's willingness to co-operate, thus strengthening the latter's position. Increasingly, works councils are being involved in co-management. Even so, they are by no means avoiding confrontation. Still, individualisation ('fractalisation') is causing differences of interest between the works councils of different firms. In many places, methods to deal with this problem have yet to be found. This often slows the development of cooperation with works councils in supplier companies." (author's abstract