On the Democratic Problem of Conspiracy Politics

2018 ◽  
pp. 111-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Moore
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Positive Expectation ◽  
Low Expectations ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
Partisan Competition

Distrust is an essential part of democratic politics. Familiar institutions and practices, such as the separation of powers, partisan competition, and public vigilance, are premised on a positive expectation that others intend to harm our interests. Such practices can organize and domesticate distrust, and make it productive for the democratic system. Yet distrust can go wrong in two sorts of ways. One is through partisan distrust spiraling into what I call conspiracy politics as a result of the process of seeking to represent conspiracy-minded constituents. The other is that public vigilance premised on distrust can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, generating the behavior that fulfills those low expectations.

Mental Contrasting of Future and Reality

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Oettingen ◽  
Doris Mayer ◽  
Babette Brinkmann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Brief Intervention ◽  
Middle Level ◽  
The Other ◽  
Metacognitive Strategy ◽  
Mental Contrasting ◽  
Low Expectations

Mental contrasting of a desired future with present reality leads to expectancy-dependent goal commitments, whereas focusing on the desired future only makes people commit to goals regardless of their high or low expectations for success. In the present brief intervention we randomly assigned middle-level managers (N = 52) to two conditions. Participants in one condition were taught to use mental contrasting regarding their everyday concerns, while participants in the other condition were taught to indulge. Two weeks later, participants in the mental-contrasting condition reported to have fared better in managing their time and decision making during everyday life than those in the indulging condition. By helping people to set expectancy-dependent goals, teaching the metacognitive strategy of mental contrasting can be a cost- and time-effective tool to help people manage the demands of their everyday life.

scholarly journals Some changes in the field of civil law

2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 395-412
Author(s):  
Dušan Nikolić
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Social Value ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

In the first part of the paper, the author has outlined some changes that have happened in the field of civil law during the history, and in the second part of the paper, the author has paid attention to the modern trends, produced by the process of globalization. By analyzing certain sectors, the author has come to the conclusion that ownership title and public office are being slightly shifted from state to non-state authorities. On the other hand, this trend of the global (re)privatization has contributed to the change of attitude toward the title. The owner is expected to ewoy his title both for his own and for the public benefit. One of the most recent judgments of the European Court of Justice speaks in favor of this and it has been mentioned in this paper. This judgment supports the view that the property is not absolute and that it has a social value. The special attention is paid to the so called new institutionalism and need to question the concept of separation of powers within the European Union.

scholarly journals SEPARAÇÃO DOS PODERES E A EVOLUÇÃO DO ENTENDIMENTO DO STF SOBRE O MANDADO DE INJUNÇÃO

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 556
Author(s):  
Vidal Serrano NUNES JUNIOR ◽  
Marcio Ortiz MEINBERG
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Normative Function ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Analytical Dimension

RESUMOTrata-se de artigo cujo objetivo é identificar o entendimento do Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF sobre a Separação dos Poderes no que se refere à natureza do Mandado de Injunção, um remédio constitucional a ser concedido em caso de omissão do Poder Público em editar norma regulamentadora necessária para viabilizar o exercício dos direitos e liberdades constitucionais e das prerrogativas inerentes à nacionalidade, à soberania e à cidadania. O entendimento histórico do STF sobre o tema não é consensual e são percebidas ao menos duas grandes correntes às quais se afiliaram os ministros: Teoria Concretista e Teoria Não-Concretista (além de suas subdivisões). As duas grandes correntes diferenciam-se radicalmente, tanto no que se refere ao relacionamento entre o Judiciário e os demais Poderes, quanto aos efeitos do Mandado de Injunção. Além disso, o entendimento do STF evoluiu historicamente, não apenas quanto ao posicionamento majoritária da Corte em torno de alguma das teorias, mas também quanto ao desenvolvimento de cada uma delas. A partir da análise das principais decisões do STF sobre o tema, sistematizaremos as características centrais de cada uma das correntes (e como se diferenciam), bem como suas fundamentações e evolução. A metodologia adotada é a Dogmática Jurídica (cf. Alexy e Dreier), com foco nas dimensões empírica (pela análise das decisões do STF) e analítica (estabelecendo definições e sistematizando os conceitos utilizados pelos ministros do STF). Como conclusão, apresentaremos as características centrais de cada uma das teorias adotadas pelo STF no que se refere ao tema Separação dos Poderes.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Separação dos Poderes; Mandado de Injunção; Função Normativa. ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to identify how Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF (Brazilian’s Supreme Court) sees the Separation of Powers related to the nature of the Writ of Injunction, a constitutional remedy (relief) to be granted in case of Public Power’s omission in enacting a regulatory norm needed to enable the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms and the prerogatives inherent in nationality, sovereignty and citizenship. The historical opinion of the STF on this subject is not consensual, and there is at least two major currents in which the ministers-judges have joined: Concretist Theory and Non-Concretist Theory (and its subdivisions). The two major currents differ radically, either about the relationship between the Judiciary and the other Powers, as about the effects of the Writ of Injunction. Besides, the STF’s opinion has evolved historically, not only regards the majority position of the Court around one of the theories, but also as to the development of each of them. After analysing the main STF’s decisions on the subject, we systematize the central characteristics of each of the currents (and how they differ from each other), as well as their foundations and evolution. The methodology is the Legal Dogmatic (according Alexy and Dreier), with focus on the empirical dimension (the analysis of STF’s decisions) and analytical dimension (the establishment of definitions and the systematization the concepts used by the STF’s ministers-judges). In conclusion, we present the central characteristics related to Separation of Powers of each one the theories adopted by the STF.KEYWORDS: Separation of Powers; Writ of Injunction; Normative Function.

Designing for Democracy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Forestal
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Built Environment ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Built Environments ◽  
Democratic Practice ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Democratic Spaces ◽  
Personalization Of Politics

Designing for Democracy addresses the question of how to “fix” digital technologies for democracy by examining how the design of the built environment (whether streets, sidewalks, or social media platforms) informs how, and whether, citizens can engage in democratic practices. “Democratic spaces”—built environments that support democratic politics—must have three characteristics: they must be clearly bounded, durable, and flexible. Each corresponds to a necessary democratic practice. Clearly bounded spaces make it easier to recognize what we share and with whom we share; they help us form communities. Durable spaces facilitate our attachments to the communities they house and the other members within them; they help us sustain communities. And flexible spaces facilitate the experimental habits required for democratic politics; they help us improve our communities. These three practices—recognition, attachment, and experimentalism—are the affordances a built environment must provide in order to be a “democratic space”; they are the criteria to which designers and users should be attentive when building and inhabiting the spaces of the built environment, both physical and digital. Using this theoretical framework, Designing for Democracy provides new insights into the democratic potential of digital technologies. Through extended discussions of examples like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, it suggests architectural responses to problems often associated with digital technologies—loose networks, the “personalization of politics,” and “echo chambers.” In connecting the built environment, digital technologies, and democratic theory, Designing Democracy provides blueprints for democracy in a digital age.

Separation of Powers and the Strategic Constraint

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Bailey ◽  
Forrest Maltzman
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Law

Justices have considerable latitude to pursue either their personal preferences or their personal visions of the law. The danger is that the Court gets so far out of line from the rest of the political system that we see fundamental institutional showdowns that threaten the independence of the judiciary, such as the Court-packing controversy in the 1930s. If the elected branches influence justices, however, they can keep the Court in check, thereby attenuating such risks. This chapter tests whether the Court systematically yields to the elected branches. In particular, it examines whether individual justices vote differently when the constraints imposed by the executive and legislative branches are likely to be at their strongest. It focuses on the two versions in the literature: one in which the Court is constrained only on statutory cases and the other in which the constraint extends to all cases, including constitutional cases.

Unmaking Democratic Europe

2020 ◽  
pp. 294-312
Author(s):  
Martin Conway
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
European Union ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Post War ◽  
First Time

This concluding chapter describes how the Europe of the 1990s was for the first time in its history both united and democratic. But the sudden turning point of 1989 lacked something of the global significance of the other European post-war moments of the twentieth century in 1918 and 1945. Europe no longer stood at the centre of its own history, as demonstrated by the ineffective response of the European Union to the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and by the divisions that emerged among European states during the American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In economic terms, too, the ascendancy of a new global capitalism obliged Europe to accept the economic weather generated by more distant or universal forces. In addition, however, Europe had lost confidence in the democratic model that it had developed and, to a large degree, patented. The more fractured and fluid politics that had emerged in Europe by the end of the twentieth century might be more appropriately described as post-democracy: a politics still conducted through the language and institutional structures of democracy, but which lacked much of the former substance of democratic politics.

6. Separation of Powers

2019 ◽  
pp. 124-142
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
The Other ◽  
Degree Of Separation ◽  
The Uk

This chapter looks at the separation of powers. The separation of powers is a doctrine requiring that executive, legislative, and judicial powers within a state should be clearly divided and allocated to separate institutions; the aim is to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch and reduce the potential for arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power. Although the degree of separation between the three branches varies between states, codified constitutions will regulate those spheres of power by allocating specific roles and functions to each branch and will allow checks or controls to operate between them to ensure accountability. The separation of powers in the UK is weakest between the legislative and executive, and strongest and most distinct between the judiciary and the other two branches. Indeed, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has brought stronger separation between the judiciary and the executive, making the judiciary more autonomous.

6. The Court and the other branches

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-79
Author(s):  
Linda Greenhouse
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Dynamic Interaction ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Accurate Description ◽  
System P ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Making

Is the phrase separation of powers misleading? “The Court and the other branches” looks at the Court in relation to the president and Congress. A more accurate description of the relationship between the branches might be “dynamic interaction” with tensions arising between them. Sometimes these tensions cause limited disagreements. Some developments are more ominous, such as Congress’s attempts to limit the Supreme Court’s power or the power of federal courts in general. This ingrained and constitutionally based struggle about law-making authority is expressed in a cycle of interaction and reaction that shows no sign of ending and may be hard-wired into the system.

Separation of Powers and Alternative Dispute Resolution before the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-271
Author(s):  
Cedric Jenart ◽  
Mathieu Leloup
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Level ◽  
European Court

Alternative dispute resolution procedures before the European Court of Human Rights – The state agent, a member of the executive branch, tasked with representing the respondent state – Judicial and legislative branches of the respondent state limited or bound by concessions by the state agent – Convention framework effectively increases the power of the executive branch to the detriment of the other branches of government in the respondent state – Tension with national separation of powers – Possible solutions on a national and international level

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document