Deconstructing the myth of the Tatar Yoke

Analysing and comparing the various conventional and revisionist narratives on what is known as the ‘Tatar Yoke’, this article aims to show that Western historiography has long been critical of the dominant negative view on the Tatar–Mongol rule over Russian principalities and that in Russia we find similar revisions in history – with some exceptions – only in post-Soviet times. This article aims to demonstrate how the revisionist views on the Tatar–Mongol rule contributed to the political and cultural transformation of contemporary Russia. In the part which analyses the revisionist discourse in Russia the emphasis lies on the new Tatar narrative. For Tatars the new interpretation of the Tatar–Mongol rule is of outstanding importance because it functions as a means to enhance Tatar national pride, and it contributes to Tatarstan's sovereignty project.     

Towards a Hierarchy of Legal Acts in the European Union? Simplification of Legal Instruments and Procedures

Abstract A remarkable feature of the Union's legal order is the absence of a genuine hierarchy of legal acts—a pre‐established ranking of different types of legal acts in accordance with the democratic legitimacy of their respective authors and adoption procedures, which is used as a means to resolve conflicts among these different types of legal acts. There is however a clear suggestion of such hierarchy in the sequence in which the newly created legal instruments are listed in Article I‐33(1) and in the organisation of the subsequent Articles I‐34 to I‐37 of the European Constitution. In this contribution, the (lost) logic behind the Union's current set of legal instruments is analysed, followed by an examination of the reform of the system of legal instruments carried out in the European Constitution. Lastly, an attempt is made to answer the question as to whether this reform amounts to the establishment of a genuine hierarchy of legal acts in the Union.     

'We ourselves, we are part of the functioning':: The ICC, victims, and civil society in the Central African Republic

As a new justice institution, the International Criminal Courtneeds to gain legitimacy not just with states, but also in civilsociety, both at the global level and in the societies in whichit intervenes. This article, based on interviews, NGO documents,newspaper articles, and participatory observation, looks atcivil society relations with the ICC in relation to its mostrecent and least publicized investigation, in the Central AfricanRepublic (CAR). It charts the role of civil society organizations,local and international, in the opening of the investigation,and it discusses the initial responses of civil society figuresand victims in the CAR to the investigation. It finds that,unlike in any of the other situations, the ICC's involvementin the CAR has been largely instigated by local civil societyfigures, and that, as a result, it operates in a quite receptivecontext. However, the slow pace of investigations and trials,the meagre outreach to date, and the Court's probable lack ofcapacity to provide victims with physical and material securityare long-term challenges to its ability to meet local expectationsof justice.     

The backlash against civil society in the wake of the Long War on Terror

The enthusiasm for civil society that emerged in the late 1980s and 1990s with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the spread of democratic regimes has been replaced in recent years by a backlash against civil society on many levels and fronts. This has particularly intensified since the attacks of 11 September 2001 and the ensuing global war on terror. This article examines the causes of this backlash within the context of the ‘Long War on Terror’, describes the overt and implicit manifestations of the backlash, and reflects upon the implications for the future. It considers how the growing prominence of concerns about security and the concomitant expansion of counter-terrorist measures across the world threaten the spaces for civil society to flourish and act. It argues that while the manifestations of the backlash, such as the crackdown on NGOs in Russia and the taming of NGOs by bilateral and multilateral agencies, may appear to be disparate, unconnected phenomena, on closer inspection it is clear that they are intricately intertwined.     

Do we need special,collective rights for immigrants and refugees in Western Europe?

Ethicists and political philosophers like Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor have sensitized us to the need for recognizing the specific identity of minority groups. Once we stress the importance of group identities, the question arises how to protect those identities. Taylor and Kymlicka seek the answer to this question in granting special, collective rights to minority groups. In their analysis, Taylor and Kymlicka seem to have some specific, ‘historically settled’ minority groups in mind: the native Indian peoples of North America, and the French‐speaking community in Quebec, respectively. In my article, I want to examine whether this plea for special rights can be transferred to the Western European and, more specific, Dutch context. In this context, ‘minorities’ are not historically settled communities, but rather ethnic minorities, migrant workers and refugees, who have settled here only recently. Is it possible to maintain here, too, that special, collective rights are the best way to protect their identity? I shall answer this question in the negative. In the Western European setting, cultural pluralism may be best guaranteed by sticking to quite ordinary individual human rights. If these rights are implemented fully and effectively, we do not need special rights.     

Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions

Coproduction of public services means that services are not only delivered by professional and managerial staff in public agencies but also coproduced by citizens and communities. Although recent research on this topic has advanced the debate considerably, there is still no consensus on precisely what coproduction means. This article argues that rather than trying to determine one encompassing definition of the concept, several different types of coproduction can be distinguished. Starting from the classical definitions of Elinor Ostrom and Roger Parks, the article draws on the literature on professionalism, volunteering, and public management to identify the distinctive nature of coproduction and identify basic dimensions on which a typology of coproduction can be constructed. Recognizing different types of coproduction more systematically is a critical step in making research on this phenomenon more comparable and more cumulative.     

Professionals and Shifts in Governance

The position of professionals in public services is affected directly by public management reforms. This article systematically links different types of governance to professionalism, using Osborne's (2010 Osborne, S.P. 2010. The new public governance, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) distinction between Public Administration, New Public Management and New Public Governance. In the development of professionalism in the context of public management, one can observe an increasing fragmentation of sources of legitimacy, an accumulation of different professional requirements and a growing difficulty to distinguish professionals and non-professionals.     

What does democracy mean? Activist views and practices in Athens,Cairo, London and Moscow

We shed light on the discontent with and the appeal of democracy by interviewing some of the most committed critical citizens: core activists in street protests. Based on interviews in Athens, Cairo, London, and Moscow, we found that they rejected representative democracy as insufficient, and believed democracy to entail having a voice and a responsibility to participate intensively in political decision-making. Activists saw themselves as engaged in prefigurative politics by fostering democratic practices within the movement and, ultimately, in society, but also raised concerns about internal power dynamics reproducing existing inequalities and exclusions. The insistence by activists that citizens have both a right and a duty to participate should be taken more seriously by political scientists and policymakers, not just as a threat to democracy and democratization, but as an opportunity. However, contemporary social movements are not straightforward sites of prefiguration, but sites of struggle between experimental and traditional forms of organizing, between inclusive aspirations and exclusive tendencies.