This article presents the conceptualization of fundamental foreign policy beliefs of 62 German decision-makers and experts from the executive branch, parliament, think tanks, media, and academia concerning the March 2011 un Security Council resolution on Libya. The actors’ perceptions were abductively inferred from qualitative interviews using the reconstructivist theoretical framework. Four types of respondents were identified: Realists, Normalizers, Traditionalists, and Pacifists. While they shared the general imperatives of military restraint, alliance solidarity, multilateralism, and upholding values, their specific partisan-ideological interpretation of the application of those rules for action in the case of Libya differed. Both Normalizers and Traditionalists perceived Germany’s UN vote abstention and non-participation in the NATO-led intervention as a break with German foreign policy and a costly mistake, whereas the Realists and Pacifists were in support of the German center-right coalition government’s policy of military restraint, although for very different reasons.
{"title":"German Foreign Policy Rules for Action during the 2011 Libya Crisis","authors":"Hermann Kurthen","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380401","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the conceptualization of fundamental foreign policy beliefs of 62 German decision-makers and experts from the executive branch, parliament, think tanks, media, and academia concerning the March 2011 un Security Council resolution on Libya. The actors’ perceptions were abductively inferred from qualitative interviews using the reconstructivist theoretical framework. Four types of respondents were identified: Realists, Normalizers, Traditionalists, and Pacifists. While they shared the general imperatives of military restraint, alliance solidarity, multilateralism, and upholding values, their specific partisan-ideological interpretation of the application of those rules for action in the case of Libya differed. Both Normalizers and Traditionalists perceived Germany’s UN vote abstention and non-participation in the NATO-led intervention as a break with German foreign policy and a costly mistake, whereas the Realists and Pacifists were in support of the German center-right coalition government’s policy of military restraint, although for very different reasons.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42317202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The New Nationalism?","authors":"J. Sterphone","doi":"10.1016/c2013-0-05846-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-05846-x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49394683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents an analysis of how think tanks of the German New Right have sought to expand the reach of the New Right into far-right electoral politics, specifically those embodied by the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Informed by social network analysis and document analysis, the research focuses on the years between 2013 and 2017, the period that saw the foundation of the AfD, its shift to the right toward embracing nationalist-völkisch positions, and its entry into the Bundestag. The data show that only a few New Right think tanks have strongly engaged with the AfD for the purpose of changing ideology, personnel, or policy. Most of these think tanks are well-networked with other actors, such as magazines and campaign groups from the wider far right.
{"title":"The German New Right and Its Think Tanks","authors":"Hartwig Pautz","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380403","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents an analysis of how think tanks of the German New Right have sought to expand the reach of the New Right into far-right electoral politics, specifically those embodied by the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Informed by social network analysis and document analysis, the research focuses on the years between 2013 and 2017, the period that saw the foundation of the AfD, its shift to the right toward embracing nationalist-völkisch positions, and its entry into the Bundestag. The data show that only a few New Right think tanks have strongly engaged with the AfD for the purpose of changing ideology, personnel, or policy. Most of these think tanks are well-networked with other actors, such as magazines and campaign groups from the wider far right.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"51-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41867696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wolfgang Gründinger, Drivers of Energy Transition: How Interest Groups Influenced Energy Politics in Germany (Wiesbaden: Springer vs, 2017).Thomas Unnerstall, The German Energy Transition: Design, Implementation, Cost and Lessons (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2017).
Wolfgang Gruüdinger，《能源转型的驱动因素：利益集团如何影响德国能源政治》（Wiesbaden：Springer vs，2017）。Thomas Unnerstall，《德国能源转型：设计、实施、成本和教训》（柏林：施普林格出版社，2017）。
{"title":"Review Essay","authors":"S. Milder","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380405","url":null,"abstract":"Wolfgang Gründinger, Drivers of Energy Transition: How Interest Groups Influenced Energy Politics in Germany (Wiesbaden: Springer vs, 2017).Thomas Unnerstall, The German Energy Transition: Design, Implementation, Cost and Lessons (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2017).","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"91-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47999309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The most significant World War II battle between Germans and Italians outside of Italy was the September 1943 battle for the Greek island of Cephalonia, ending in the post-battle execution by German Mountain Troops of thousands of Italian soldiers. The recent clash between two German groups over what happened illustrates ongoing disputes about guilt and responsibility—how governments, historians, and civilians mobilize facts to write history. The Mountain Troops’ Veterans Association, which has influenced official German memory of the war, used the Cephalonia case to reassert the myth of Wehrmacht innocence, contrary to opinion-shaping Wehrmacht exhibits of the 1990s. In 2010, the federal government, backing a German judicial decision, reasserted the Wehrmacht Myth, despite opposition from Rome, Athens, and an international association of activists, as reports on right-wing extremism in the German police, judiciary, and military have become increasingly prevalent.
{"title":"The German Mountain Troops and Their Opponents, 1943 to the Present","authors":"N. Stoltzfus","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380404","url":null,"abstract":"The most significant World War II battle between Germans and Italians outside of Italy was the September 1943 battle for the Greek island of Cephalonia, ending in the post-battle execution by German Mountain Troops of thousands of Italian soldiers. The recent clash between two German groups over what happened illustrates ongoing disputes about guilt and responsibility—how governments, historians, and civilians mobilize facts to write history. The Mountain Troops’ Veterans Association, which has influenced official German memory of the war, used the Cephalonia case to reassert the myth of Wehrmacht innocence, contrary to opinion-shaping Wehrmacht exhibits of the 1990s. In 2010, the federal government, backing a German judicial decision, reasserted the Wehrmacht Myth, despite opposition from Rome, Athens, and an international association of activists, as reports on right-wing extremism in the German police, judiciary, and military have become increasingly prevalent.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"72-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49376291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In times of crisis, the attribution of responsibility is at the core of public debates. Next to the question of blame, collective interpretations of who should impose remedies are contested. In the Eurozone crisis, Germany was an obvious addressee for this attribution of “treatment responsibility.” After years of relative reluctance, Germany had occupied a new role as it strongly pressured for harsh austerity in Greece and other crisis-hit countries. This article explores the public attribution of treatment responsibility among Greek and German actors in the Eurozone crisis debate. Based on a systematic content analysis of German and Greek newspapers as well as Reuters news reports between 2009 to 2016, we find a surprising absence of German actors as attribution addressees in Greece. Despite Germany’s dominant role in the Eurozone crisis, Greek actors stress the responsibility of their own government (and that of EU actors) to act upon the crisis. In the German debate, Greek addressees are one category among many in a strongly Europeanized debate.
{"title":"Looking for the Way Out","authors":"Jochen Roose, Moritz Sommer, Maria Kousis","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380303","url":null,"abstract":"In times of crisis, the attribution of responsibility is at the core of public debates. Next to the question of blame, collective interpretations of who should impose remedies are contested. In the Eurozone crisis, Germany was an obvious addressee for this attribution of “treatment responsibility.” After years of relative reluctance, Germany had occupied a new role as it strongly pressured for harsh austerity in Greece and other crisis-hit countries. This article explores the public attribution of treatment responsibility among Greek and German actors in the Eurozone crisis debate. Based on a systematic content analysis of German and Greek newspapers as well as Reuters news reports between 2009 to 2016, we find a surprising absence of German actors as attribution addressees in Greece. Despite Germany’s dominant role in the Eurozone crisis, Greek actors stress the responsibility of their own government (and that of EU actors) to act upon the crisis. In the German debate, Greek addressees are one category among many in a strongly Europeanized debate.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"25-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47076948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Germany’s role in Europe and the world is changing fundamentally. For about five decades West Germany’s and reunited Germany’s position was very much aligned with the European integration project.Despite its hegemonic potential, Germany defined its role as a partner of the other EU member states. Within the EU framework and globally, it mostly acted jointly with European partners, particularly France. Although Germany’s situation altered significantly after unification, it still refrained from exercising its increased power and was rather seeking the role of a “gentle giant.” This was largely the case despite some exceptions, such as the unilateral recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence in the early 1990s, and criticism that Germany might tend to single-handed foreign policy—the “Alleingang.”
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"I. Karolewski, Julian Pänke, Jochen Roose","doi":"10.3167/gps.2020.380301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2020.380301","url":null,"abstract":"Germany’s role in Europe and the world is changing fundamentally. For about five decades West Germany’s and reunited Germany’s position was very much aligned with the European integration project.Despite its hegemonic potential, Germany defined its role as a partner of the other EU member states. Within the EU framework and globally, it mostly acted jointly with European partners, particularly France. Although Germany’s situation altered significantly after unification, it still refrained from exercising its increased power and was rather seeking the role of a “gentle giant.” This was largely the case despite some exceptions, such as the unilateral recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence in the early 1990s, and criticism that Germany might tend to single-handed foreign policy—the “Alleingang.”","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46492904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores interpretive practices and discursive arguments that mediate transnational influences. In South Korea, a growth-oriented economy, competitive democracy, and an antagonistic relationship with North Korea developed during the Cold War era under the strong influence of the U.S. and Japan. This study analyzes how Germany—a country that is regarded as an exemplary case for a social market economy, consensus democracy, and successful national reunification—was imagined as a model for reform. By analyzing editorials and opinion articles published in major Korean newspapers, this article investigates the aspects of Germany that Korean elites paid attention to and the narratives that they constructed about Germany. The results show that competing Korean elites produced different German narratives and “German models,” leading to the integration of these competing models into conflicts surrounding South Korea’s future.
{"title":"Imagined Germany and the Battle of Models in South Korea","authors":"Jin-Wook Shin, B. Jeong","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380307","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores interpretive practices and discursive arguments that mediate transnational influences. In South Korea, a growth-oriented economy, competitive democracy, and an antagonistic relationship with North Korea developed during the Cold War era under the strong influence of the U.S. and Japan. This study analyzes how Germany—a country that is regarded as an exemplary case for a social market economy, consensus democracy, and successful national reunification—was imagined as a model for reform. By analyzing editorials and opinion articles published in major Korean newspapers, this article investigates the aspects of Germany that Korean elites paid attention to and the narratives that they constructed about Germany. The results show that competing Korean elites produced different German narratives and “German models,” leading to the integration of these competing models into conflicts surrounding South Korea’s future.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"113-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48166451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines perceptions of Germany in Ireland during the Euro crisis. It explores debates about a “normalization” of Germany’s role in Europe and its European identity, calling for a focus on external perceptions of Germany as key to understanding the extent to which Germany is viewed as “normal” from the outside. Through a presentation of findings from qualitative analysis of political speeches and newspaper articles, it shows that perceptions of Germany are filtered through discourses on Irish national identity that place Irish economic interests and national sovereignty at the heart of Irish engagement in the EU. Whereas Irish leaders argue in favor of further integration as a means to regain economic sovereignty, opposition actors and the conservative press see Germany as exercising economic control of Europe. The Irish case demonstrates that Germany’s past continues to shape the way in which its leadership in Europe is perceived from the outside.
{"title":"Perceptions of German Leadership","authors":"Charlotte Galpin","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380302","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines perceptions of Germany in Ireland during the Euro crisis. It explores debates about a “normalization” of Germany’s role in Europe and its European identity, calling for a focus on external perceptions of Germany as key to understanding the extent to which Germany is viewed as “normal” from the outside. Through a presentation of findings from qualitative analysis of political speeches and newspaper articles, it shows that perceptions of Germany are filtered through discourses on Irish national identity that place Irish economic interests and national sovereignty at the heart of Irish engagement in the EU. Whereas Irish leaders argue in favor of further integration as a means to regain economic sovereignty, opposition actors and the conservative press see Germany as exercising economic control of Europe. The Irish case demonstrates that Germany’s past continues to shape the way in which its leadership in Europe is perceived from the outside.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"7-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48810939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article explores German leadership in Europe as mirrored in national-populist media discourses in Britain, Greece, and Poland. In an effort to discredit the EU as another attempt at German imperialism, accusations of EU institutions being modeled after German blueprints constrain Berlin’s ability to achieve effective and legitimate European leadership. By applying role theory, the argument investigates why these ideas and images resonate so well. The article presents three supportive contexts of a German leadership paradox that—together with painful World War II memories—lead to the persistence of certain national-populist discourses. These include (1) Germany’s Nazi past; (2) German nation-building, which partly resembles European integration processes; and (3) like the eu, Germany’s projection of its interests in terms of normative power (or Zivilmacht), thereby constructing and recognizing respective selfs in “civilizing missions.” This article does not aim to strengthen such populist readings but instead advocates addressing them more openly.
{"title":"“The Fourth Reich Is Here”","authors":"Julian Pänke","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380304","url":null,"abstract":"The article explores German leadership in Europe as mirrored in national-populist media discourses in Britain, Greece, and Poland. In an effort to discredit the EU as another attempt at German imperialism, accusations of EU institutions being modeled after German blueprints constrain Berlin’s ability to achieve effective and legitimate European leadership. By applying role theory, the argument investigates why these ideas and images resonate so well. The article presents three supportive contexts of a German leadership paradox that—together with painful World War II memories—lead to the persistence of certain national-populist discourses. These include (1) Germany’s Nazi past; (2) German nation-building, which partly resembles European integration processes; and (3) like the eu, Germany’s projection of its interests in terms of normative power (or Zivilmacht), thereby constructing and recognizing respective selfs in “civilizing missions.” This article does not aim to strengthen such populist readings but instead advocates addressing them more openly.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"54-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48870460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：