Advertisement

Opposition und Dissidenz in der Weltgesellschaft – Zur Rekonstruktion globaler Herrschaft aus dem Widerstand

  • Christopher Daase
  • Nicole Deitelhoff
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Ganz überwiegend wird Herrschaft vom Gehorsam gedacht und nicht vom Widerstand, den sie erzeugt. Das führt dazu, dass in den großen Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen nur ein verkürzter Herrschaftsbegriff im Sinne legitimier Autorität oder umgekehrt als Hegemonie Eingang gefunden hat. Beide verlieren aber gerade die Vielfältigkeit von Herrschaftsverhältnissen und ihre Effekte in der internationalen Politik aus den Augen. Der Beitrag schlägt im Gegensatz dazu vor, Herrschaft über die Praxis des Widerstands zu erfassen und illustriert an zwei Beispielen, aus dem Bereich nuklearer Dissidenz und der globalisierungskritischen Bewegung die Vorteile eines solchen Verständnisses.

Literatur

  1. Andretta, Massimiliano, Donatella della Porta, Lorenzo Mosca, und Herbert Reiter. 2006. Globalization from below: Transnational activists and protest networks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anghie, Anthony. 2006. The evolution of international law: Colonial and post-colonial realities. Third World Quarterly 27 (5): 739–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1970. Macht und Gewalt. München: Piper.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, Hannah. 1977. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  5. Arendt, Hannah. 1986. Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft. In Governance and Resistance in World Politics, Hrsg. D. Armstrong, T. Farrell, und B. Maiguashca. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ashley, Richard K. 1988. Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 17 (2): 227–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayres, Jeffrey M. 2003. Global governance and civil society collective action, the challenge of complex transnationalism. International Journal of Political Economy 33 (4): 84–100.Google Scholar
  8. Barnett, Michael, und Raymond Duvall. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnett, Michael N., und Martha Finnemore. 1999. The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization 53 (4): 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleiker, Roland. 2005. Seattle and the Struggle for a global democratic ethos. In Critical theories, international relations and ‘Anti-Globalisation Movement’, Hrsg. C. Eschle und B. Maiguashca, 195–212. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Boswell, Terry, und Mike Sweat. 1991. Hegemony, long waves, and major wars. A time series analysis of systematic dynamics, 1496–1967. International Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brand, Ulrich. 2007. Die Internationalisierung des Staates als Rekonstitution von Hegemonie. Zur staatstheoretischen Erweiterung Gramscis. In Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang. Zivilgesellschaft und Politik im Staatsverständnis Antonio Gramscis, Hrsg. S. Buckel und A. Fischer-Lescano, 161–180. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brassett, James, und Richard Higgott. 2003. Building the normative dimension(s) of a global polity. Review of International Studies 29 (1): 29–55.Google Scholar
  14. Buckel, Sonja, und Andreas Fischer-Lescano. 2007. Hegemonie im globalen Recht – Zur Aktualität der Gramscianischen Rechtstheorie. In Hegemonie gepanzert mit Zwang. Zivilgesellschaft und Politik im Staatsverständnis Antonio Gramscis, Hrsg. S. Buckel und A. Fischer-Lescano, 85–104. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bull, Hedley. 1995. The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press. (Erstveröffentlichung 1977).Google Scholar
  16. Caygill, Howard. 2013. On resistance. A philosophy of defiance. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, John D., und Nun S. Themudo. 2006. Linking the web and the street: Internet-based “Dotcauses” and the “Anti-Globalization” movement. World Development 34 (1): 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clausewitz, Carl von. 1980. Vom Kriege (Hrsg. von Werner Hahlweg). Bonn: Dümmler.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, Jere, Lawrence E. Hazelrigg, und Whitney Pope. 1975. De-Parsonizing Weber: A critique of Parson’s interpretation of Weber’s Sociology. American Sociological Review 40 (2): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cox, Robert W. 1981. Social forces, states, and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 10:126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cox, Robert W. 1983. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 12 (2): 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crossley, Nick. 2002. Global anti-corporate struggle: A preliminary analysis. British Journal of Sociology 53 (4): 667–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daase, Christopher. 2003. Der Anfang vom Ende des nuklearen Tabus. Zur Legitimitätskrise der Weltnuklearordnung. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 10 (7): 41.Google Scholar
  24. Daase, Christopher, und Nicole Deitelhoff. 2015. Jenseits der Anarchie: Widerstand und Herrschaft im internationalen System. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56 (2): 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahl, Robert A. 1965. Reflections on opposition in western democracies. Government and Opposition 1 (1): 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dahl, Robert A. 1966. Political opposition in western democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Della Porta, Donatella. 1995. Social movements, political violence, and the state. A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dhawan, Nikita. 2013. The politics of the governed (lecture manuscript). Frankfurt, November 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Donnelly, Jack. 2006. Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society. European Journal of International Relations 12 (2): 139–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Donnelly, Jack. 2009. Rethinking political structures: from ‘ordering principles’ to ‘vertical differentiation’ – and beyond. International Theory 1 (1): 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Douglas, Mary, 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Falk, Richard. 2000. Resisting “Globalization-from-Above” through “Globalization-from-Below”. In Globalization and the politics of resistance, Hrsg. B. K. Gills, 46–56. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foucault, Michel. 1983. Der Wille zum Wissen. Sexualität und Wahrheit 1. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  34. Foucault, Michel. 1990. The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  35. Foucault, Michel. 2005. Schriften in vier Bänden – Dits et Ecrits 4: 1980–1988. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1979. Dependent accumulation and underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gibson, John. 2008. The myth of the multitude: The endogenous demise of Alter-globalist politics. Global Society 22 (2): 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gill, Stephen. 1993. Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gill, Stephen. 1995. Globalisation, market civilisation & disciplinary neoliberalism. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 24 (3): 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gill, Stephen. 2000. Toward a postmodern Prince? The battle of seattle as a moment in the new politics of globalisation. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 29 (1): 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gill, Stephen. 2003. Power and resistance in the new world order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Gilpin, Robert. 1983. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Gilpin, Robert. 1989. The theory of hegemonic war. In The origin and prevention of major wars, Hrsg. R. I. Rotberg und T. K. Rabb, 16–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Grieco, Joseph M. 1988. Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal instituionalism. International Organization 42 (3): 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guzzini, Stefano. 2005. The concept of power: A constructivist analysis. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hardt, Michael, und Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson, und Michael J. Tierney. 2006. Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hay, Colin. 2007. Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  49. Hedlund, Gunnar, und Dag Rolander. 1990. Actions in heterarchies: New approaches to manage the MNC. In Managing the global firm, Hrsg. C. A. Bartlett, Y. Doz, und G. Hedlund, 15–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Helms, Ludger. 2004. Five ways of institutionalizing political opposition: Lessons from the advanced democracies. Government and Opposition 39:22–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Higgott, Richard. 2000. Contested globalization: The changing context and normative challenges. Review of International Studies 26:131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hooghe, Lisbeth, und Gary Marks. 2012. Politicization. In Handbook on the European Union, Hrsg. E. Jones, S. Weatherill, und A. Menon, 840–853. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Hoover, Dean, und David Kowalewski. 1992. Dynamic models of dissent and repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36:150–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hurd, Ian. 2008. After anarchy. Legitimacy and power in the United Nations security council. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hurrell, Andrew. 2006. Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers. International Affairs 82 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ikenberry, G. John, Michael Mastanduno, und William C. Wohlforth. 2009. Introduction: Unipolarity, state behavior, and systemic consequences. World Politics 61 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jain, J. P. 1974. Nuclear India. New Delhi: Radiant.Google Scholar
  58. Juris, Jeffrey S. 2005. Violence performed and imagined. militant action, the black bloc and the mass media in genoa. Critique of Anthropology 25 (4): 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kapur, A. 1978. International nuclear proliferation: Multilateral diplomacy and regional aspects. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  60. Kelsen, Hans. 1944. Peace through law. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  61. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After hegemony. Cooperation and discord in world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Keohane, Robert O. 1989. Neoliberal instituionalism: A perspective on world politics. In International institutions and state power: Essays in international relations theory, Hrsg. R. O. Keohane, 1–20. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  64. Keohane, Robert O., und Joseph S. Nye. 1975. International interdependence and integration. In Handbook of political science, Vol. VIII: International politics, Hrsg. F. Greenstein und N. W. Polsby, 363–414. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  65. Keohane, Robert O., und Joseph S. Nye. 1977. Power and interdependence. World politics in transition. Boston: Addison Wesley School.Google Scholar
  66. Kindleberger, Charles P. 1981. Dominance and leadership in the international economy. International Studies Quarterly 25 (3): 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kirchheimer, Otto. 1957. The waning of political opposition in parliamentary regimes. Social Research 25:381–414.Google Scholar
  68. Kissinger, Henry. 1986. Das Gleichgewicht der Großmächte. Metternich, Castlereagh und die Neuordnung Europas 1812–1822, Zürich: Manesse Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Lake, David A. 1993. Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential. International Studies Quarterly 37 (3): 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lake, David. 2009. Hierarchy in international relations. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Langbein, Hermann. 1986. Dem brutalsten Terror zum Trotz. Widerstand in den nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslagern 1939–1945. In Widerstand und Exil 1933–1945, Hrsg. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 159–168. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  72. Lukes, Steven. 1983. Macht und Herrschaft bei Weber, Marx, Foucault. In Verhandlungen des Deutschen Soziologentages: Vorträge und Diskussionen, Bd. 21, 106–119. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  73. Mahbubani, Kishore. 2009. The new asian hemisphere: The irresistible shift of global power to the east. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  74. Martin, Lisa L. 1992. Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization 46 (4): 765–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mearsheimer, John J. 1994/1995. The false promise of international institutions. International Security 19 (3): 5–49.Google Scholar
  76. Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  77. Milner, Helen. 1991. The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory. A Critique. Review of International Studies 7 (1): 69–81.Google Scholar
  78. Modelski, George. 1987. The study of long cycles. In Exploring long cycles, Hrsg. G. Modelski, 1–15. Boulder: L. Rienner.Google Scholar
  79. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1954. Politics among Nations, 2. Aufl. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  80. Münkler, Herfried. 2007. Imperiale Ordnung. Die Governance-Leistung von Imperien in komparativer Perspektive. In Staatszerfall und Governance, Hrsg. M. Beisheim und G. F. SchuSert, 263–284. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Murphy, Craig. 1994. International organization and industrial change: Global governance since 1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Nye, Joseph S. 1990. Bound to lead. The changing nature of American power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  83. O’Brien, Robert, Anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte, und Williams Marc. 2000. Contesting global governance. Multilateral economic institutions and social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Offe, Claus, und Ulrich K. Preuss. 2006. The problem of legitimacy in the European polity. Is democratization the answer? Conweb Papers 6:1–37.Google Scholar
  85. Onuf, Nicholas, und Frank F. Klink. 1989. Anarchy, authority, rule. International Studies Quarterly 33 (2): 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ottaway, Marina. 2001. Corporatism goes global: International organizations, nongovernmental organization networks, and transnational business. Global Governance 7:265–292.Google Scholar
  87. Oye, Kenneth A. 1985. Explaining cooperation under anarchy: Hypotheses and strategies. World Politics 38 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Powell, Robert. 1994. Anarchy in international relations theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal debate. International Organization 48 (2): 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rajagopal, Balakrishnan. 2003. International law from below: Development, social movements and third world resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rupert, Mark. 2005. In the belly of the beast: Resisting globalisation and war in a neo-imperial moment. In Critical Theories, International Relations and 'the anti-globalisation movement': the Politics of Global Resistance, Hrsg. C. Eschle, und B. Maigusashca, 36–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Rupert, Mark, und Hazel Smith. 2002. Historical materialism and globalization: Essays on continuity and change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Schakel, Arjan, Lisbeth Hooghe, und Gary Marks. 2015. Multilevel governance and the state. In The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state, Hrsg. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, und J. Stephens, 269–285. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  93. Schimmelfennig, F. 1998. Liberal norms and the Eastern enlargement of the European union: A case for sociological institutionalism. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 27 (4): 459–472.Google Scholar
  94. Schlichte, Klaus. 2012. Der Streit der Legitimitäten. Der Konflikt als Grund einer historischen Soziologie des Politischen. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung 1 (1): 9–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Simmel, Georg. 1907. Zur Philosophie der Herrschaft: Bruchstücke aus einer Soziologie. In Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 31, 439–471.Google Scholar
  96. Simmel, Georg. 1908. Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  97. Sklair, Leslie. 2001. The transnational capitalist class. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  98. Statham, Paul. 2010a. Conclusion: What kind of Europeanized public politics? In The making of a European public sphere: Media discourse and political contention, Hrsg. R. Koopmans und P. Statham, 277–306. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Statham, Paul. 2010b. Making Europe news: Journalism and media performance. In The making of a European public sphere: Media discourse and political contention, Hrsg. R. Koopmans und P. Statham, 125–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The nuclear taboo. The United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vagts, Detlev F. 2001. Hegemonic international law. American Journal of International Law 95 (4): 843–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Viola, Lora. 2009. Diplomacy and the origins of the diplomatic system, paper presented at international studies association annual conference. New York: 1. Februar 2009.Google Scholar
  103. Viola, Lora, Duncan Snidal, und Michael Zürn. 2013. Sovereign (In)equality in the evolution of the international system. In The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state, Hrsg. S. Leibfried, E. Huber und J. Stephens, 221–236. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  104. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  105. Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The origins of alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  107. Weber, Max. 1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (Erstveröffentlichung 1922).Google Scholar
  108. Weber, Max. 1995. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (Erstveröffentlichung 1922).Google Scholar
  109. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it. International Organization 47 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wendt, Alexander. 1994. Collective identity formation and the international state. American Political Science Review 88 (2): 384–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wendt, Alexander. 2003. Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations 9 (4): 491–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wohlforth, William C., Richard Little, und S.J. Kaufmann. 2007. Testing Balance-Of-Power theory in world history. European Journal of International Relations 13 (2): 155–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Woods, Ngaire. 2000. The challenge of good governance for the IMF and the world bank themselves. World Development 28 (5): 823–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Worth, Owen, und Karen Buckley. 2009. The world social forum: Postmodern prince or court jester? Third World Quarterly 30 (4): 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zürn, Michael. 2012. Autorität und Legitimität in der postnationalen Konstellation. In Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik (Sonderheft des Leviathan), Hrsg. A. Geis, F. Nullmeier, und C. Daase, 41–62. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zürn, Michael. 2013. Politisierung als Konzept der Internationalen Beziehungen. In Die Politisierung der Weltpolitik, Hrsg. M. Zürn und M. Ecker-Ehrhardt, 7–35. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  118. Zürn, Michael. 2015. Jenseits der Anarchie: Autorität und Herrschaft in der Global Governance. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56 (2): 320–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zürn, Michael, und Nicole Deitelhoff. 2015. Internationalization and the state – Sovereignty as the external side of modern statehood. In The Oxford handbook of transformations of the state, Hrsg. S. Leibfried, E. Huber, und J. Stephens, 193–217. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  120. Zürn, Michael, Martin Binder, und Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt. 2012. International authority and its politicization. International Theory 4 (1): 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und KonfliktforschungFrankfurt am MainDeutschland

Personalised recommendations