Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1405)
- Part of a Book (908)
- Working Paper (651)
- Editorship book (177)
- Contribution to a Periodical (176)
- Book (136)
- Doctoral Thesis (93)
- Review (44)
- Conference Proceeding (33)
- Case Study (16)
Language
- English (2844)
- German (763)
- French (48)
- Spanish (25)
- Other (11)
- Italian (7)
- Dutch (2)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Russian (1)
Keywords
- Centre for Sustainability (25)
- Germany (24)
- - (20)
- China (16)
- Social entrepreneurship (13)
- European Union (12)
- Fertility (12)
- Außenpolitik (10)
- social innovation (10)
- Economics (8)
This chapter introduces the contribution of Europe to the development of human rights ideas, law, and institutions. In a spirit of ‘provincialising Europe’, it argues that Europe’s contributions to human rights are ambivalent and dynamic. The chapter first examines natural rights and rights of citizens as twin, but also potentially conflicting, developments in demarcating Europe’s contributions to human rights. Europe is historically a home of human rights ideas as well as strong critiques and double standards in the use of these ideas. The chapter then examines European contributions to the legalization of human rights with a focus on two institutional Europes: that of the Council of Europe and the European Union. Finally, the chapter reviews contemporary human rights debates, against the backdrop of authoritarianization in Europe on the one hand and demands for new human rights to tackle the climate crisis, and digitalization of modern societies on the other.
The aim of this chapter is to consider whether accusations of judicial activism towards the European Courts are rooted not in the activity of the CJEU per se but rather a wider ‘imbalance’ between law and politics in the present-day EU. Revisiting an earlier chapter, the chapter considers three sources of such an imbalance: the gap between the jurisdiction of the CJEU and the EU’s legislative competence; judicial reasoning at the EU level; and the imbalance in the EU between market and non-market objectives. While the chapter argues that the EU retains such an imbalance, recent developments, particularly the increasing dynamism of the EU legislature, have significantly narrowed the gap between the EU’s political and legal capacities in the last decade. As the chapter will conclude, the EU carries a less institutionally ‘lonely’ Court than in the past, providing the Union’s judiciary with greater leverage to temper activist claims.
The Court inhabits a ‘political space’ to which it is called upon to respond. This points to its need to develop cooperative relationships not only with courts but also with political actors (such as national governments and the EU legislature) and even to directly address and explain decisions to EU citizens themselves. This book is aimed at answering the question of ‘How does the CJEU position itself as a political as well as a legal actor?’ with a view to better understanding the work of the Court and addressing its contestation. For that purpose, we explore in this introductory chapter what is meant by judicial ‘activism’ and judicial ‘politics’, before examining the different varieties of judicial politics our authors have shown an interest in. This will pave the way to drawing some lessons on the factors to take into account when seeking to address and respond to contestation of the work of the Court.
Addressing the tensions between the political and the legal dimension of European integration as well as intra-institutional dynamics, this insightful book navigates the complex topic of judicial politics. Providing an overview of key topics in the current debate and including an introductory chapter on different conceptions of judicial politics, experts in law and politics interrogate the broader political role of the European Court of Justice.
To accept carbon pricing, citizens desire viable alternatives to fossil-fuel based options. As inflation and higher interest rates have exacerbated access barriers for capital-intensive green substitutes, the political success of carbon pricing will be measured by how well policy design enables consumers to switch.
How do voters form accurate expectations about the strength of political candidates in constituency elections if there are no reliable constituency polls available? We argue that voters can use national election polls and past election results to increase the accuracy of their expectations. A survey experiment during the German federal election of 2021 confirms that the provision of national election polls and past results increases the accuracy of voters’ expectations. The analysis further shows that voters leverage the information to update their beliefs. The results have relevant implications for debates about belief formation in low-information environments.
This chapter presents a microeconomic, behavioral perspective on bounded rationality and beliefs. It begins with an account of how research on belief biases, in particular via probabilistic belief elicitation, has become mainstream in economics only relatively recently and late, even in behavioral economics (aka “psychology and economics”). The chapter then offers a review of the decision-theoretic foundations of modeling and eliciting (subjective) beliefs as probabilities, as well as selected—both classic and recent—evidence on humans’ bounded rationality from related research in psychology and economics. In doing so, it connects the historical debates within decision theory, on the one hand, and within psychology, on the other, concerning the normative status of expected utility and Bayesianism, as well as its methodological implications. A conclusion draws lessons for the practice of belief elicitation and future research.