The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Ayelet Shachar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • spatial Statism foreword
    Social Science Research Network, 2019
    Co-Authors: Ran Hirschl, Ayelet Shachar
    Abstract:

    In this Foreword article, we wish to insert a degree of innovation into debates about global law and the supposed demise of state-based sovereignty and public law. We do so by asking how considerations of space, place and density impact the conceptualization and utilization of state power in a world of growing complexity and interdependence. In an array of key policy areas (immigration regulation and border control; the constitutional status of cities; natural resources; the place of religious symbols in the public sphere; and “us vs. them” constructions of national identity), we examine how state-centered public law defines, and where required redefines, space and territory in order to tame potential threats—local or global—to the state’s territorial sovereignty. Our exploration highlights the tremendous versatility and creativity of states in deploying and stretching, through the classic tools of public law, their spatial and juridical tentacles in a new and complex global environment. Taken in conjunction, these illustrations suggest that the disregard for and dismissal of the state as a potent actor in the public law arena is premature. State sovereignty may be metamorphosing, but it is evidently not vanishing.

Paul Hirst - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Statism pluralism and social control
    Social Science Research Network, 2000
    Co-Authors: Paul Hirst
    Abstract:

    As we enter the twenty-first century it is appropriate to question whether social control through the legal order and institutionalized policing is effective and appropriate. As national societies have attempted to control and to protect against a wider range of contingencies, arising from a more complex division of labour, from changing social standards leading to higher expectations of health and welfare, and from new contingencies such as the threats of environmental pollution or the need to regulate information technology, so they have produced more and more elaborate laws. What Carl Schmitt called'motorized legislation' has become a reality. It threatens the rule of law because the sheer volume of laws, their complexity and interconnection, and their constantly changing nature make the application of rules uncertain and knowledge of them, even by specialist lawyers, doubtful. Laws and subsidiary regulations cover kilometres of shelf space, and the operation of law becomes ever costlier-so much so that major companies are writing arbitration clauses into their contracts. At the same time most western societies have become more and more heterogeneous. In major cities diverse ethnic and lifestyle groups lead separate lives. Rules for one group about acceptable conduct will seldom entirely agree with another's-Born Again Christians and gays are unlikely to agree, for example. Outside of a thin core of public morality-almost everyone will agree that murder, theft and fraud are crimes-groups would be better off setting and policing their own standards. Citizens would have to accept that different rules applied to different communities with informal self-regulation and arbitration. Basing modern societies on communities of choice, democratically self-governing, would reduce the load of central inspection and rule making. This would both check rule proliferation and allow different groups to follow their own affairs. Laws could be simplified and, applied to a thinner core of common social life, could be more effective. Far from undermining formal law, community self-regulation could restore public confidence in it and by reducing the scale and scope of common rule-making and policing, make both more effective. Basing societies around plural self-governing communities of choice would enable individuals to exercise the option of doing things differently, but also offer the constraint of exit over excessive community regulation, since such obligations would be voluntary. Greater community self-control would tend to reduce inter-community friction, because individuals would not feel threatened that they would be the subject of legislation in matters of morals and lifestyles by artificial political majorities. The political doctrine for such a system of groups or community self-governance is called associationalism or associative democracy. Allied with the organization of public services and welfare on an associationalist model, community self-governance would strengthen the roots of modern social organization and make a virtue of increasing moral and value pluralism.

  • from Statism to pluralism democracy civil society and global politics
    1997
    Co-Authors: Paul Hirst
    Abstract:

    Part 1 Democracy and associative governance: associative democracy associational democracy from Statism to pluralism democracy, socialism's best reply to the right. Part 2 Democracy and civil society: quangos and democracy democracy and civil society revision of David G. Green "Reinventing Civil Society" sidestepping the state. Part 3 Global pressures and democratic governance the state, civil society and the collapse of Soviet communism security challenges in post-communist Europe endism - Frances Fukuyama Globoloney why the national still matters.

Sune Sandbeck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Etienne Schneider - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Alfonso Gonzales - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • neoliberalism the homeland security state and the authoritarian turn
    Latino Studies, 2016
    Co-Authors: Alfonso Gonzales
    Abstract:

    This article interrogates the writings of Milton Friedman and Samuel Huntington to theorize the cultural and ideological processes that gave rise to the homeland security state, a complex and integral configuration of the modern capitalist state that has come to police migrants in multiple realms. Though I discuss some of the major policies and institutional shifts that were central to the forging of the homeland security state from the 1980s to the early twenty-first century, I argue that such policies could not be separated from the authoritarian turn in civil society; that is a cultural and ideological tendency to support the use of violence and repression to deal with dissent and social problems writ large. I also argue that the authoritarian turn should be viewed as the civil society-based cultural and ideological counterpart of “authoritarian Statism,” a concept developed by the Greek political theorist Nicos Poulantzas to characterize a repressive form of governance that can exist within the legal framework of a constitutional democracy. The article concludes with some notes about what the authoritarian turn and Statism means for the migrant rights movement and parallel social movements in light of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parental Accountability.