Finding cover: Legal trauma and how to take care of it

As law originates in violence, it is always haunted by its constitutive trauma. Recourse to law's origin, which is implicitly or explicitly sought in (constitutional) adjudication, thus requires a way to deal with law's trauma. What is needed is a cover, to be provided through (legal) interpretation. Four such interpretive ‘cover up’ operations, all necessarily somewhat duplicitous, are discussed. The first three represent main currents in legal theory. First, the standard legal view, which denies the trauma but relies on traditional authority to cover it. Second, a ‘neurotic’ solution, in which trauma is also denied but nevertheless cover is produced through collective interpretation. In the third, ‘perverse’ solution, trauma is admitted, and even enjoyed; on the other hand, it is denied that cover can be produced by any interpretive authority. The fourth option provides an alternative: recognition of law's trauma, covering it through the collectively shared practice of interpretation. It is shown that an example of such a collective effort can be found in the Dutch practice of gedogen, the deliberate under-enforcement of law, which is capable of creating an ‘informal rule of law’ that deals with intractable social problems more successfully than attempts formally to enforce applicable law. This revised version was published online in November 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Sympathy for the ‘devil’? Voting for populists in the 2006 and 2010 Dutch general elections

What motivations do voters have to vote for populist parties? How do their motivations differ from those of voters for mainstream parties? Analyzing new empirical material – the Dutch elections of 2006 and 2010 – we demonstrate that policy preferences, protest attitudes and evaluations of party leaders are important reasons to vote for populist parties. Yet only protest attitudes distinguish voters for populist parties from voters for mainstream parties; evaluations of party leaders turn out to be equally important for both. We theorize how protest attitudes and party leader evaluations overlap and employ an exploratory simulation technique to test this. We find that populist parties differ strongly from each other with regard to the specific patchwork of motivations of their voters.     

What does the EU-SADC EPA really say? An analysis of the economic partnership agreement between the European Union and Southern Africa

After more than 10 years of negotiations, the European Union and six members of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) successfully concluded talks on an economic partnership agreement (EPA). The EPA is a reciprocal trade agreement under the umbrella of the Cotonou Agreement, under which all parties commit to trade liberalisation but under which the SADC EPA countries can exempt sensitive products from liberalisation so as to take account of their level of development. This article explains in detail the contents of the agreement, examines the degree of trade liberalisation, and explores the lesser known provisions of the EPA. The article then argues that part of the agreement's developmental character resides in the numerous provisions that offer benefits to SADC EPA states but not to the EU. It also highlights provisions that could be invoked to help African states in the process of economic diversification. Finally, contrary to some detractors, the article takes the view that policy space for policy-makers remains by and large respected.     

Party performance explains disagreement between politicians and their parties

Are politicians more likely to disagree with their party after an electoral defeat or during a spell in opposition? If so, are they likely to advocate a more moderate or a more radical position than their party? In order to evaluate this, the article analyses the absolute distance between candidates for parliament and their parties on the left–right dimension. The sample used consists of 5614 politicians from 11 countries (Comparative Candidate Survey). Controlling for party system differences and individual characteristics, the results demonstrate that politicians take more moderate positions than their party after an electoral defeat. Also politicians of government parties are surprisingly more likely to disagree than politicians of opposition parties. These results overlap with predictions of party position shifts and inform the discussion on how intra-party dynamics bring about changes in party position. In addition, the article finds evidence of loss aversion, and differences in the responsiveness of elite and non-elite candidates.     

Turning on the Citizen: Modern Citizenship and its Cultural Hazards

How is the citizen 'turned on'? That is, how does one 'switch' from being a private person to being a citizen? This article investigates how several prominent models of politics and citizenship account for this switch. In particular, the role of (cultural) identity in performing the 'switch' is highlighted. In the 'standard' liberal model, the switch from private to public is considered an unproblematic 'mind switch'. In the communitarian model, on the contrary, it is considered impossible: the good citizen must be a good person. In the republican model, identity 'restrictions' can be overcome by actively participating in the context of a culture of democratic deliberation. In the liberal multicultural model, cultural identity counts explicitly, although as a handicap, to be overcome by the support of cultural rights. In the model of identity politics, finally, identity counts positively, as an asset. Although identity thus empowers 'switching', its 'transformative' dimension has unpredictable and often unsettling effects, due to unacknowledged elements in the demand for recognition of identity in politics. Throughout the article, the vicissitudes of 'switching' are illuminated by an analysis of the Clinton-Lewinsky case, showing how president Clinton's 'sexualized identity' affected his ability to switch from private to public affairs--for better or for worse.     

Invasive Neobiota – neue Herausforderung im Umweltrecht

Ohne Zusammenfassung