Regulating for media pluralism and the pitfalls of standortpolitik: the reregulation of German broadcasting ownership rules

Germany has witnessed a veritable television boom over the last ten years. However, the plethora of new private channels masks an underlying duopoly, a concentration of media power that has not been prevented by an elaborate system of regulation. This article maps these developments, particularly the Lander competition for investment, the structural power of the media industry, and the emergence of a media policy ‘Grand Coalition’ between SPD North Rhine‐Westphalia and CSU Bavaria. It assesses the Federal Constitutional Court's role and highlights the public broadcasters’ crucial function to act as a pluralistic counterbalance in the dual public/private broadcasting system.     

Students’ Personal Belief in a Just World,Well-Being,and Academic Cheating: A Cross-National Study

Social Justice Research - A cross-national study with university students from Germany (n?=?1135) and Turkey (n?=?634) tested whether personal belief in a just world (PBJW)...     

Precision-guided or blunt? The effects of US economic sanctions on human rights

Public Choice - This study analyzes the consequences of economic sanctions for the target country’s human rights situation. We offer a political economy explanation for different types of...     

Prevention,knowledge, justice: Robert Nozick and counterterrorism

ABSTRACT

This article explores questions of justice and moral permissibility of state action in counterterrorism through Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Using the case of the Berlin attack in December of 2016 and the ensuing political debate over whether potential terrorists could be put into preventive custody as an illustrative example, it engages Nozick’s argument on prevention, knowledge and justice. In Nozick’s fierce defence of individual rights, the state comes into being as an aggregate of individuals and their inviolable rights, and thus possesses no moral legitimacy of its own. Individual rights must therefore not be violated for the sake of common goods. In conjunction with his emphasis on free will and the ensuing unpredictability of human decision-making, the article highlights the Nozickian position as a powerful account against the justification of preventive custody, thereby providing a moral “fail-safe” in counterterrorism discourses that build on just war theory and utilitarianism.     

Direct Democracy and Political Trust: Enhancing Trust,Initiating Distrust–or Both?

This study investigates the relationship between direct democracy and political trust. We suggest a solution to the controversy in research centering on positive versus negative effects of direct democracy by analytically differentiating between the availability of direct democratic rights and the actual use of those rights. Theoretically, greater availability of direct democratic rights may enhance political trust by increasing citizens' perception that political authorities can be controlled as well as by incentivizing political authorities to act trustworthily. In contrast, the actual use of the corresponding direct democratic instruments may initiate distrust as it signals to citizens that political authorities do not act in the public's interest. We test both hypotheses for the very first time with sub‐national data of Switzerland. The empirical results seem to support our theoretical arguments.