@misc{EnderleinVerdun, author = {Enderlein, Henrik and Verdun, Amy}, title = {EMU and Political Science: What have we learned?}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {Abingdon}, isbn = {978-0415574822}, pages = {158}, language = {en} } @incollection{EnderleinWaeltiZuern, author = {Enderlein, Henrik and W{\"a}lti, Sonja and Z{\"u}rn, Michael}, title = {Introduction}, series = {Handbook on Multi-Level Governance}, booktitle = {Handbook on Multi-Level Governance}, publisher = {Elgar Publ.}, address = {Cheltenham}, isbn = {978 1 84720 241 3}, pages = {1 -- 16}, language = {en} } @article{EnderleinBofingerPadoaSchioppaetal., author = {Enderlein, Henrik and Bofinger, Peter and Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso and Sapir, Andr{\´e}}, title = {Eurozone needs a permanent bail-out fund : With endorsements from Jacques Delors, Joschka Fischer, Romano Prodi, and Guy Verhofstadt}, series = {Financial Times}, volume = {27}, journal = {Financial Times}, number = {27.09.2010}, publisher = {Financial Times}, language = {en} } @book{MungiuPippidi, author = {Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina}, title = {A Tale of Two Villages. Coerced Modernization in the East European Countryside}, publisher = {Central European University Press}, address = {Budapest}, isbn = {978-963-9776-78-4}, pages = {232}, abstract = {A non-fiction book about the social engineering operated in rural Eastern Europe by the Communist regime, based on the history of two villages in Romania. One of the two villages is the birthplace of Nicolae Ceausescu, the former Communist dictator, Scornicesti, which received massive investment during communist years and was turned into a mixture of underdeveloped village and industrial town. The other is Nucsoara, the Carpathian cradle of peasants' resistance against Communism, where half the village was executed or imprisoned and their lands divided between the other half. The state intervention failed in both villages to attain the planned objectives, but it nevertheless changed fundamentally the life of villagers. This book is mostly about the consequences of unlimited state power over people and communities.}, language = {en} } @article{FlachslandHareStockwelletal., author = {Flachsland, Christian and Hare, B. and Stockwell, C. and Oberth{\"u}r, Sebastian}, title = {The Architecture of the Global Climate Regime}, series = {Climate Policy}, volume = {10}, journal = {Climate Policy}, number = {6}, publisher = {Taylor \& Francis}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1752-7457}, doi = {10.3763/cpol.2010.0161}, pages = {600 -- 614}, abstract = {This article argues that a legally binding, multilateral agreement is a necessary condition for achieving the highest levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions consistent with limiting warming to below either 2°C or below 1.5°C. Clear legally binding commitments within a multilaterally agreed process with strong legal and institutional characteristics are needed to give countries the confidence that their economic interests are being fairly and equally treated. Common accounting rules are needed for comparability of effort, and in order to protect environmental integrity, to demonstrate transparency, for effective monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of emissions and actions, and to facilitate and support a strong international carbon market. Securing full implementation will depend, in part, on the strength of an agreement's compliance mechanism. The Copenhagen Accord, by itself, represents a quintessential 'bottom-up'/'pledge and review' approach. It is open to interpretation whether the Accord can become a stepping stone on the way to strengthening the legally binding, multilateral framework to fight climate change, building on both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, or whether it will lead to the unravelling and fragmentation of all that has been built up to date. Legal architecture choices made in 2010 and beyond are likely to be determinative.}, language = {en} } @article{FlachslandKnopfEdenhoferetal., author = {Flachsland, Christian and Knopf, Brigitte and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Kok, Marcel and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Luderer, Gunnar and Popp, Alexander and van Vuuren, Detlef P.}, title = {Managing the Low-Carbon Transition - From Model Results to Policies, Special Issue:'The Economics of Low Stabilization'}, series = {The Energy Journal}, volume = {31}, journal = {The Energy Journal}, number = {Special Issue 1}, publisher = {IAEE - International Association for Energy Economics}, address = {Cleveland}, issn = {0195-6574}, pages = {223 -- 245}, abstract = {Model analysis within the ADAM project has shown that achieving low greenhouse gas concentration levels, e.g. at 400ppm CO 2 -eq, is technologically feasible at costs of a few percent of GDP. However, models simplify the dynamics involved in implementing climate policy and the results depend on critical model assumptions such as global participation in climate policy and full availability of current and newly evolving technologies. The design of a low stabilization policy regime in the real world depends on factors that can only be partly covered by models. In this context, the paper reflects on limits of the integrated assessment models used to explore climate policy and addresses the issues of (i) how global participation might be achieved, (ii) which kind of options are available to induce deep GHG reductions inside and outside the energy sector, and (iii) which risks and which co-benefits of mitigation options are not assessed by the models.}, language = {en} } @incollection{FlachslandMarschinskiEdenhofer, author = {Flachsland, Christian and Marschinski, Robert and Edenhofer, Ottmar}, title = {Developing the international carbon market post-2012: Options and the cost of delay}, series = {Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptiveness}, booktitle = {Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Architecture, Agency and Adaptiveness}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {9780521180924}, language = {en} } @incollection{BiermannPattbergZelli, author = {Biermann, Frank and Pattberg, Philipp and Zelli, Fariborz}, title = {Global Climate Governance after 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation}, series = {Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies}, booktitle = {Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, isbn = {978-0521119412}, language = {en} } @techreport{KurbanTsitselikis, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kurban, Dilek and Tsitselikis, Konstantinos}, title = {A Tale of Reciprocity: Minority Foundations in Greece and Turkey}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-17545}, pages = {40}, abstract = {The word most frequently uttered by Greece and Turkey with regard to their Muslim1 and non-Muslim minorities, respectively, is most probably 'reciprocity.' For more than half a century, in both countries, virtually all administrations,irrespective of their political leanings and ideological base, resorted to the good old 'reciprocity argument' to legitimize their laws, policies, and practices restricting the minority rights of Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Both states have for decades justified their policies on the basis of a theory that argues that Article 45 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne provided the legal basis for reciprocity. Deliberately distorting a crystal-clear provision, which simply confers parallel obligations on Greece and Turkey for the protection of the Muslim and non-Muslim minorities, respectively, both states have for decades held their own citizens hostage, pitting them against each other in the name of defeating the other in foreign policy. Disregarding the objections of international lawyers and institutions that the reciprocity principle does not apply to human rights treaties and that states cannot condition the protection of the fundamental rights of their citizens on the policies of other states, both Greece and Turkey have successfully manipulated their national public opinion into believing in the legitimacy of treating minorities as lesser citizens. This report analyzes the implications of reciprocity policies on the day-to-day lives of Muslim and non-Muslim minorities in Greece and Turkey, specifically their impact on the community foundations2 belonging to these minorities. With a specific focus on the property and self-management issues of Muslim and non-Muslim community foundations in Greece and Turkey, the report situates the issue in its historical context and trace the evolution of the 'community foundation issue' from Lausanne to the present day. Drawing similarities and differences between the laws, policies, and practices of Greek and Turkish states vis-{\`a}-vis their minority foundations, the report critically assesses the progress made to this day as well as identify the outstanding issues.}, language = {en} } @article{BaiocchiMinx, author = {Baiocchi, Giovanni and Minx, Jan C.}, title = {Understanding changes in the UK's CO2 emissions: A global perspective}, series = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {44}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, number = {4}, issn = {0013-936X}, doi = {10.1021/es902662h}, pages = {1177 -- 1184}, language = {en} }