Suchergebnisse

"Using sources from classical to modern that draw on related concepts such as risk and chance, this book creates a novel approach to the recognized but theoretically often unattended issue of uncertainty. Andreas Klinke develops a new, general theory of uncertainty that provides a taxonomy of categories which are deduced from a critical inventory in philosophy, social and natural sciences, and risk research. Comprising six parts, the philosophical grounding of uncertainty sets the stage for the following accounts and explanation of four distinctive guises of uncertainty that form a taxonomic notion and rationale: ontological, epistemological, linguistic-communicative, and teleological uncertainty. The theoretical-conceptual rumination provides a complex, differentiated view of the anatomy of uncertainty and an understanding that can be used in further theoretical and empirical research, as well as socio-political practice. The latter is delineated in the final part addressing the societal domestication of uncertainty. This book will be of great interest to scholars and students in philosophy, social and natural sciences, risk research, as well as inter- and transdisciplinary science fields"--

Das vorliegende Buch befasst sich mit einer der derzeit sicher spannendsten Baustellen der Politikwissenschaft, nämlich dem Herauslösen des Regierens aus den traditionell dafür vorgesehen Institutionen sowohl innerhalb als auch jenseits des Staates. Andreas Klinke stellt sich der doppelten Aufgabe, sowohl ein Verständnis der neuen horizontal-dialogischen politischen Steuerungsmuster als auch ein angemessenes Modell deliberativer Politik zu gewinnen. Vor dem Hintergrund dieses demokratietheoretischen Modells wird der tatsächliche Bestand deliberativer Politik im Grosse Seen-Regime der USA und Kanada beurteilt.

A critical methodology of cosmopoliticization describes a new theoretically guided approach of empirical analysis to capture phenomena and quality of cosmopoliticization. The study and interpretation of cosmopoliticization and cosmopolitanism needs a critical pivot that draws on empirical issues and social facts to some extent to advance the theorizing of notions of cosmopolitan governance and democracy. First, I substantiate the rationale behind a new critical methodology of cosmopoliticization. Then, I argue that the sources of real-world insights of cosmopolitan practices and experiences can be derived from empirical analyses of three major subject matters, namely the formation of cosmopolitan solidarity, ethos, and belief, the role of cosmopolitan public spheres, and international democratization through civil society participation and deliberation. These analytical categories and units can convey cosmopolitan values and principles that are critical of a significant cosmopolitan departure from dominant nation-state related paradigms and politics because they embody an impetus for recognition and esteem of the ecological and ethical value and meaningfulness of the entire earth system for humankind in terms of a right conduct and practice in present and future.

An emerging task in world politics is to cope with human-induced global risks in domains such as environment, economy, security, and health. Current global governance institutions are largely incapable of tackling global risks and applying deductive policy models, which is why new modes of interaction may become essential. In this article I argue that through focused discourses, key peculiarities of global risks, namely complexity, scientific uncertainty and sociopolitical ambiguity, may be identified and understood. To this end, distinctively discursive and pragmatic learning processes can be developed. Different forms of deliberation and participation help develop processes that meet the challenges, problems, and conflicts that result from the key peculiarities of global risks. Hence, the article establishes a causal link between key peculiarities of global risks and postnational discourses. I discuss the varying forms of deliberation and participation (epistemic institutions, associational policy making, and transnational public deliberation and participation) of three discourses that produce institutional problem solving capacity in global risk governance. To this end, this article links theory and practice as well as normative conceptualisation and institutional feasibility. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractAn emerging task in world politics is to cope with human-induced global risks in domains such as environment, economy, security, and health. Current global governance institutions are largely incapable of tackling global risks and applying deductive policy models, which is why new modes of interaction may become essential. In this article I argue that through focused discourses, key peculiarities of global risks, namely complexity, scientific uncertainty and sociopolitical ambiguity, may be identified and understood. To this end, distinctively discursive and pragmatic learning processes can be developed. Different forms of deliberation and participation help develop processes that meet the challenges, problems, and conflicts that result from the key peculiarities of global risks. Hence, the article establishes a causal link between key peculiarities of global risks and postnational discourses. I discuss the varying forms of deliberation and participation (epistemic institutions, associational policy making, and transnational public deliberation and participation) of three discourses that produce institutional problem solving capacity in global risk governance. To this end, this article links theory and practice as well as normative conceptualisation and institutional feasibility.

Over the last two decades, transboundary regional environmental governance has witnessed some institutional change through an increasing shift from intergovernmentally constituted political institutions to new complex structures of decision-making where policy-making has begun to adapt to a new, more active role of societal actors at multiple levels of political authority. In addressing this issue, the article raises the following questions: How can new structures and processes of public deliberation and participation in transboundary regional environmental governance be designed, and which opportunities and risks emerge? To address these questions, the article develops a normative-analytical design for regional environmental governance in ecoregions; this design defines the conditions under which public deliberation and participation conveying discourse, argument, and persuasion can help to democratize collective decision-making.

AbstractProposed as an advanced conceptualization of how to handle risk, risk governance begins with the critique and expansion of the traditional idea and standard practices of risk analysis. In developments over the last two decades, proponents of a more integrative approach on governing risks have moved further away from distinct conceptions of risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication and toward the processes and institutions that guide, restrain, and integrate collective activities of handling risk. In early formulations of what risk governance entails, the superiority of the interplay between risk evaluation and risk management over linear and simple deductions from risk assessment to risk management was established precisely by developing a distinctive rationality of how to proceed. Later, the International Risk Governance Council recaptured this distinctive rationality that institutionalized processes should embody the interplay of the assessment of risks and related concerns, their sociopolitical appraisal, and the logical inference for risk management. Recently, this approach has been refined and augmented toward an integrative and adaptive concept of risk governance and toward a postnormal conception of risk governance. Main characteristics are a new concept of differentiated responsibility and deliberation in which expertise, experience, and tacit knowledge are integrated, forming the core of legitimate political risk decision making.