Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance

This symposium demonstrates the potential for throughput legitimacy as a concept for shedding empirical light on the strengths and weaknesses of multi-level governance, as well as challenging the concept theoretically. This article introduces the symposium by conceptualizing throughput legitimacy as an ‘umbrella concept’, encompassing a constellation of normative criteria not necessarily empirically interrelated. It argues that in order to interrogate multi-level governance processes in all their complexity, it makes sense for us to develop normative standards that are not naïve about the empirical realities of how power is exercised within multilevel governance, or how it may interact with legitimacy. We argue that while throughput legitimacy has its normative limits, it can be substantively useful for these purposes. While being no replacement for input and output legitimacy, throughput legitimacy offers distinctive normative criteria— accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness— and points towards substantive institutional reforms.Published versio

Corporate Security Responsibility: Towards a Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Research Agenda

The political debate about the role of business in armed conflicts has increasingly raised expectations as to governance contributions by private corporations in the fields of conflict prevention, peace-keeping and postconflict peace-building. This political agenda seems far ahead of the research agenda, in which the negative image of business in conflicts, seen as fuelling, prolonging and taking commercial advantage of violent conflicts,still prevails. So far the scientific community has been reluctant to extend the scope of research on ‘corporate social responsibility’ to the area of security in general and to intra-state armed conflicts in particular. As a consequence, there is no basis from which systematic knowledge can be generated about the conditions and the extent to which private corporations can fulfil the role expected of them in the political discourse. The research on positive contributions of private corporations to security amounts to unconnected in-depth case studies of specific corporations in specific conflict settings. Given this state of research, we develop a framework for a comparative research agenda to address the question: Under which circumstances and to what extent can private corporations be expected to contribute to public security

Parliamentarisation of the CFSP through informal institution-making? The fifth European Parliament and the EU high representative

This article examines whether the European Parliament has been able to use the institution of the High Representative as a lever to increase its powers in the EU's common foreign and security policy. Since it is found that the EP's strategy towards the HR has neither brought it any informal powers nor been instrumental in forcing the proposal of an EU Foreign Minister, a formal intergovernmentalist position appears to be vindicated. Yet from an institutionalist perspective it may be retorted that the few attainments of the EP so far are a consequence of it having a far higher sensitivity to failure on CFSP-related issues than on well-institutionalized European Community policies. As a future Foreign Minister will be better able than the HR to secure some degree of political independence from the Council, this may well lead the European Parliament to reassess its strategy and to adopt a more assertive stance

Programm

Dieser Band dokumentiert die Reden, welche am 7. Juli 2006 in Hamburg anlässlich der feierlichen Eröffnung des Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker-Zentrum für Naturwissenschaft und Friedensforschung, gehalten wurden. Als Hauptredner waren Alyson J. K. Bailes, die Leiterin des Stockholmer Friedensforschungsinstitutes (SIPRI), Staatsminister a.D., Prof. Egon Bahr, ehemaliger Leiter des Hamburger Friedensforschungsinstituts (IFSH), Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, ein Sohn des Namensgebers des ZNF, und Prof. Wolfgang Panofsky aus Stanford, USA geladen. Mit der Gründung des Zentrums an der Universität Hamburg, dessen Leitung Prof. Dr. Martin Kalinowski obliegt, hat die naturwissenschaftliche Friedensforschung eine bundesweit einmalige institutionelle Verankerung erhalten. Zusammen mit dem Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik (IFSH) in Hamburg entsteht ein inter- und multidisziplinär ausgerichteter Forschungsverbund, durch den neue Möglichkeiten eröffnet werden, die Wechselwirkung von Naturwissenschaften, Konflikten und internationaler Sicherheit vor dem Hintergrund der Leitbilder Frieden und Nachhaltigkeit zu erforschen und diese auch in die Ausbildung von Naturwissenschaftlern zu integrieren.This volume documents the speeches given on July 7, 2006 in Hamburg on the occasion of the ceremonial opening of the Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker Center for Science and Peace Research (Zentrum für Naturwissenschaft und Friedensforschung, ZNF). The keynote speakers were Alyson J. K. Bailes, Head of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), former Minister of State, Prof. Egon Bahr, former Head of the Hamburg Peace Research Institute (scientific peace research has gained a unique institutional foothold in Germany. Together with the Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitpolitik, IFSH), Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, a son of the namesake of the ZNF, and Prof. Wolfgang Panofsky from Stanford, USA. With the founding of the Centre at the University of Hamburg, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Kalinowski, scientific peace research has gained a unique institutional foothold in Germany. Together with the IFSH in Hamburg an inter- and multidisciplinary research network is being established which will open up new opportunities to explore the interaction of natural sciences, conflicts and international security against the background of the guiding principles of peace and sustainability and to integrate them into the training of natural scientists

Comparing regional organizations in global multilateral institutions:ASEAN, the EU and the UN

Structural change brought about by the end of the Cold War and accelerated globalisation have transformed the global environment. A global governance complex is emerging, characterised by an ever-greater functional and regulatory role for multilateral organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and its associated agencies. The evolving global governance framework has created opportunities for regional organisations to participate as actors within the UN (and other multilateral institutions). This article compares the European Union (EU) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as actors within the UN network. It begins by extrapolating framework conditions for the emergence of EU and ASEAN actorness from the literature. The core argument of this article is that EU and ASEAN actorness is evolving in two succinct stages: Changes in the global environment create opportunities for the participation of regional organisations in global governance institutions, exposing representation and cohesion problems at the regional level. In response, ASEAN and the EU have initiated processes of institutional adaptation