Neuigkeiten und Ankündigungen

4th Annual JCT Workshop: Sustainability in the Anthropocene – June 11-12, 2024 @ University of Potsdam 

Location: University of Potsdam, Campus Griebnitzsee, House 7 Room 0.13

To receive the pre-circulated papers for the conference, please register your interest with your name and affiliation at justclimatetransitionsugmailpcom.

Program

11.06.2024

10:00 Welcome (Coffee and tea from 09:45)

10:15 – 11:50 Sustainability and Territorial Rights

Moderator: Kathleen Wallace

Jonathan Kwan (NYU Abu Dhabi):Ecological Sustainability: A People’s Self-Regarding Duty as an Intergenerational Group

I argue for a conception of ecological sustainability as a collective self-regarding duty that a people, understood as an intergenerational group and territorial rights holder, has as a precondition for and a constitutive part of its right to self-determination. This view does not preclude the existence of other duties of sustainability held by other agents or grounded in values distinct from self-determination (e.g., global justice or non-anthropocentric values). Nonetheless, this way of framing a duty of sustainability is distinct from and has certain advantages over other more familiar conceptions. First, here the duty of sustainability is not a duty that one generation owes another, which raises certain puzzles about how to conceptualize the rights of future generations that do not yet exist. Instead, the duty of sustainability is one that a people—already understood as an intergenerational group—owes itself and is grounded in the right to self-determination that a people claims for itself. Both the social ontology of the people as intergenerational and the normative right of self-determination, which involves the right to decide the trajectory of a people’s common destiny, have futural elements built into them that serve to ground a duty of ecological sustainability. Additionally, insofar as the people can be conceptualized as a multispecies community (as many Indigenous conceptions of peoplehood emphasize), this view need not be committed to an anthropocentric conception of sustainability as valuable only for the protection of human interests. Second, my account straightforwardly avoids nonidentity problems, which beset positions that conceptualizes sustainability duties as owed to future individuals, since current environmental policies, while likely necessary conditions for the very existence of certain future individuals, are generally not necessary conditions for future peoples coming into existence. Finally, by grounding a duty of sustainability in the value of self-determination, my view shows that the debate on intergenerational justice should be expanded to consider values other than justice. The point and meaningfulness of sustainability is not always best understood as oriented toward justice (which is often framed in terms of the claims of others competing against ours) but rather is often tied to our hopes and aspirations as a community extended across time and related to other inhabitants of our shared ecosystems.

Kerstin Reibold (UiT Norway): Sustainability, agency, and non-interference. Some mistakes in conceptualizing land.

11:50 – 13:00 Lunch

13:00 – 14:35 Human-nature relationships and their implications for environmental politics

Moderator: Fabian Schuppert

Lukas Tank; Christian Baatz (CAU Kiel): Carbon Dioxide Removal and the Domination of Nature Critique

One of the most fundamental arguments against the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is that doing so amounts to a morally problematic form of asserting dominance over nature. Remarks along the lines of ‘meddling with nature has brought us here, surely engaging in a new form of meddling is not the way forward’ are reported as common by CDR scholars engaging with policy circles and the wider public. More sophisticated versions of the same worry are reported in the academic literature, sometimes, but not always, taking the form of an accusation of hubris (e.g. Jamieson 1996, Preston 2011, Heyward 2019). In this talk we aim to show why an argument along these lines is not convincing as a blanket critique of using CDR. Our response comes in two steps: first of all, what must be admitted is that intervening into the Earth’s climate system is indeed a far-reaching intervention into nature. However, CDR is (or at least can be) a particular form of intervening into nature, namely a remedial one that comes in response to our present interference in the form of anthropogenic climate change. Even if one is committed to a position which states that ideally humans should ‘let nature be nature’ as far as that is still possible, remedial interventions plausibly should be exempted from critique. Second, proponents of the domination of nature critique have responded to this move by pointing out how CDR, even though remedial in character, is especially problematic since it constitutes an intentional intervention into nature. CDR users intervene into basic mechanisms of the Earth system not just knowingly, but precisely with the aim to alter them from their current course. We counter this point by explaining how there is no good reason to think that remedial actions should be considered problematic just because of their intentional character. Considerations refering to the way CDR interacts with nature may very well guide us in choosing which forms of CDR (not) to pursue, but are not fit to serve as a blanket critique of all forms of CDR.

Giulia Leonetti, Viola Di Tullio (IUSS Pavia): Rethinking Sustainability through Ecological Justice: A Focus on Biodiversity, Plants, and Climate Change

In the context of ecological justice, it is crucial to rethink a concept of sustainability suitable to address the issue of climate change. Humans and all the other species on the Earth are strongly interconnected (Flint et al. 2013). For this reason, harm to one part would damage the whole system. In this work, we will first discuss the value of biodiversity and the relationship between biodiversity and ecological justice, which are closely interconnected (Washington et al. 2024). Due to the biodiversity loss, the characteristics and the balance of ecosystems are changing. Consequently, the notion of ecological justice becomes crucial. In addition, practices of environmental injustice such as deforestation and pollution make biological communities vulnerable, demanding new ethical approaches. We will argue that to address these issues we should adopt a non-anthropocentric approach (Kopnina et al. 2023) to sustainability. Then, we will discuss the moral consideration of natural entities, such as plants, in the framework of ecological justice. In the second part, we will debate the role of plants (Kallhoff et al. 2018) in biodiversity conservation practices and we will argue that plants are active participants rather than passive objects in the making of ecosystems and landscapes (Sullivan 2010). We will conclude that this perspective is crucial in rethinking a concept of sustainability fit to address the challenge of climate change.

14:50 – 16:25What and whom should sustainable policies protect?

Moderator: Clare Heyward

Daniel Petz (Universitas Gadjah Mada): The currency of sustainability: Basic needs or capabilities?

Recent decades have seen a backlash against utilitarian and monetary approaches to measure well-being and alternative currencies of justice have gathered increasing traction in the sustainable development discourse. In particular, basic needs and capabilities have been brought forward as alternatives. The Brundtland report, a founding document of the sustainability discourse, argues, for example, that both the needs of present and future generations need to be met through sustainable development. Thus, needs have never fully disappeared from the sustainability discourse and in recent years gained quite some traction in scholarly circles (for example, Gough, 2017; Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020). Alternatively, both in academia and practice, capabilities have been proposed as a fitting currency to measure human development and to deal with sustainability issues (for example, UNDP 2020, Raworth 2021). Building on the background assumption that sustainability in the coming decades will mean significant change of social, consumption and mobility patterns, this paper discusses advantages and challenges of either currency when applied to sustainability in the context of the climate crisis. While likely providing viable alternatives, it argues that there might be pitfalls in using either currency, depending on how the currencies are specified, with either currency having the potential to be abused to foster the interests of current generations over those of future generations. Looking at a number of specific examples it discusses how certain challenges and pitfalls could be addressed via appropriate specification of lists, thresholds, and distributive rules to handle issues of scarcity.

Felix Westeren (LSE): Future Autonomy and Trusteeship

Our generation is faced with a number of important future-affecting decisions. Some of the most important concern our response to climate change. How quickly we reduce our emissions, how well we can protect ecosystems from the effects of climate change and what things we choose to preserve into the future will have a very significant impact on the lives people are able to live in the future. Even relatively small policy changes can have large future effects. The contention of this paper is that, if we (as we should) care about the ability of future people to lead autonomous lives, then we need some method of judging our actions for their effects on future autonomy. I propose and defend one such principle, the Trusteeship Principle. I also defend the idea that future people are owed, as a matter of justice, extensive autonomy rights that go beyond the satisfaction of their basic needs. Indeed, the Principle I defend depends on an expansive but, I think, defensible view of the autonomy-related interests and rights of future people. In particular, I defend the idea that future people have rights against us interfering with the formation and the pursuit of their conceptions of the good. We violate the former rights when we improperly influence the conceptions of the good of future people, and the latter when we do not leave them the options they need for the effective exercise of their autonomy. I argue that since future people do not yet exist, we must hold these rights in trust on their behalf, and that this has important consequences for how we ought to approach decisions that will affect them.

12.06.2024

09:45: Coffee and tea

10:00 – 11:30: Legal and societal transformations for sustainability

Moderator: Petra Gümplová

Michael Keary (Research Institute for Sustainability–Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Germany): Transformational Technology and the Green Political Community: Rethinking Green Political Theory for the Digital Transition

Digitalisation is one of the major processes shaping the contemporary world. It is also a major research focus across a whole range of academic disciplines. Yet political theory has little to say about it. It is especially surprising that green political theory has yet to engage in significant analysis of it. Digitalisation is seen by countless scholars and policymakers as key to resolving the environmental crisis. Moreover, digitalisation is heralded as a new technological ecosystem, one that is replacing the technology against which green thought has defined itself from its beginning. This article thus asks what digitalisation means for green political theory. To answer, the article employs a concept-based approach to ecologism, inspired by Freeden’s analysis of ideology. It finds the most optimistic appraisals of digitalisation’s green credentials to be dubious, but also that some digital technologies may have a place in a green political community. Digitalisation enlivens the debate about the proper scale of a green political community, challenges advocates of a green deliberative democracy, and forces us to reengage with debates about the meaning of nature. Throughout, the article highlights the many questions digitalisation raises for green beliefs and values and describes the research agenda that must be pursued if greens are to answer them.

Jeremy Moss (University of New South Wales): Climate and sustainability

This paper will discuss the challenges of climate-related losses of sustainability. The paper will discuss two normative issues for discussions of sustainability loss. The first concerns what kind of loss it is and how it is a harm to agents. In particular, how climate induced sustainability losses compound other harms. The second issue concerns how to attribute responsibility for climate-related sustainability losses where climate impacts compound the losses through other non-climate pathways. The paper will argue that an understanding of the compounding nature of climate harms is necessary to fully understand the harms involved in the loss of sustainability. The paper will focus on several examples of sustainability loss to highlight the issues.

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch

12:30 – 14:05: Holding high-emitters responsible

Moderator: Kerstin Reibold

Fausto Corvino (UC Louvain): The normative case for carbon limits

In the climate ethics literature, luxury emissions are usually described in contrast to subsistence emissions, i.e. those emissions necessary to meet a set of basic needs. The normative claim that usually accompanies the distinction between luxury and subsistence emissions is that it is unjust to realise the former if it takes away carbon space from the latter - and the recent philosophical debate focuses on empirical questions about whether and to what extent it is still necessary to emit GHGs to meet basic needs, and what part of the GHG budget must be reserved for subsistence emissions. This article argues that there are compelling normative reasons to implement carbon limits, i.e. to prohibit and/or strongly discourage luxury emissions, regardless of whether this serves to free up space for subsistence emissions or not. First, some emission-generating functionings of the rich produce a disproportionate amount of GHGs without generating significant increases in welfare, if we measure it in terms of multi-level capabilities, and this is a gross waste of the GHG budget. Second, many of the emission-generating functionings of the rich are highly positional. Therefore, foreclosing the capabilities of the rich to realise some luxury functionings is a way of safeguarding the GHG budget at zero or near-zero cost to society. Thirdly, the luxury emissions associated with the visible functionings of the rich create behavioural externalities in that they drive the immediately lower income group, i.e. the near-rich, to realise larger (and thus in many cases more polluting) functionings in order to maintain their social status, and thus down the social scale in an expenditure cascade. Because of this trickle-down effect, luxury emissions create a double climate problem. In the absence of ambitious mitigation policies, they push the non-rich to expand their carbon footprint. In the presence of ambitious policies, instead, such as a relatively high and uniform carbon price, luxury emissions (which the rich can defend because of their wealth) make it more costly for the non-rich to reduce their carbon footprint because of the resulting loss of social status (measured in terms of distance from the top income group).

Eugen Pissarskoi (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology): Non-compliers with climate mitigation obligations: how to identify them

A climate policy goal such as the 1.5°C target can be achieved only collectively, that is, only if a sufficiently large group of agents - individuals, corporations, national states - contribute their fair share towards the goal, i.e. that they appropriately reduce their greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. In the field of climate politics, not all nation states contribute the share to the collective goal which they ought to contribute (van den Berg et al. (2020); up-to-date data on: climateactiontracker.org). Under these circumstances, the question arises what moral agents who are interested in meeting the requirement from intergenerational justice - the compliers - ought to do. Some scholars have argued that compliers have the duty to take up the slack, i.e. to contribute more to the common goal than the share one is obliged to under full compliance (e.g. Stemplowska 2016). Others have defended the opposite claim that the obligations of the compliers do not change but that rather the overall moral obligations change  - regrettably as it is, we must accept that the overall moral goal cannot be collectively achieved (e.g. Miller 2011). Focusing on climate politics, Simon Caney (2020) has argued for a prima facie `right to resist moral injustices' which provides a normative justification for a further option of reaction which I call `urging': undertaking collective action to bring non-compliers to act according to what is morally required from them (c.f. Caney, 2016). In this text, I address a challenge for the option of urging which arises when it comes to identification of non-compliers. The challenge results from disagreements about moral duties to climate mitigation of particular nation states.

A necessary condition for legitimacy of urging an agent, as I shall argue, is the agent's contribution to what Rawls (1971, 57) has called `substantial and clear' injustice. However, justification of the individual obligation to climate change mitigation presupposes two normative premises which are controversial both in public and academic debates: these premises specify a principle for distribution of future risks and a principle for distribution of mitigation burdens. Because of this disagreement, it remains unclear whether a moral agent who complies with a mitigation share consistent with some of the controversial principles clearly commits an injustice. Therefore it remains unclear whether the necessary condition for legitimacy of urging is met. Germany is an instance of this ambiguity: according to the declared plans of the German Federal government, it aims at cutting national emissions in an amount which complies with its fair-share based on some principles for global and intertemporal distribution. However, Germany's plans do not comply with their fair-share derived from other, prima facie reasonable, principles for global and intertemporal distribution. In this paper, I specify and defend two second-order principles which justify how to identify non-compliers in the light of a disagreement about principles for distribution of intertemporal and global obligations.

Financed by:

LS Politische Theorie, University of Potsdam

The Environmental Philosophy Group, UiT – The Arctic University of Tromso

Re-Thinking Liberal Democracy Workshop

Dates: 7-8 March 2024

Location: University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Griebnitzsee (Campus 3)

Keynote Speaker: Veith Selk, Technische Universität Darmstadt

Details: Democracy today is considered both essential to politics as well as deeply vulnerable and under threat from both novel as well as familiar challenges. From populist movements and the growing influence of authoritarian leaders to the unknown impact of the digital revolution on information exchange, public trust, and decision making, the future political landscape remains deeply uncertain.

Distancing themselves from Fukuyama, many scholars are quick to acknowledge that democracy should not be taken as ‘the end of history’ but is in fact a highly contingent form of regime. Nevertheless, regardless of where the most pressing challenges to democracy are located, most philosophical discourse and public debate still take democracy, and all its contingencies, as the starting point of modern politics. In this sense, democracy may not be the end of history, but it should be. As liberal democracies struggle to satisfy expectations, its failings are assumed to be the result of an insufficient accounting and ordering of democracy’s challenges and weaknesses. Scholarship as a result tends to focus on re-articulating democracy in a way that accounts for and explains these challenges. Rarely is the critical, theoretical gaze turned inward towards those assumptions regarding the concept of democracy itself. Meanwhile, within public debate, polarization and political gridlock becomes increasingly entrenched as each side of the political spectrum sees the other as potentially tyrannical and declared a threat to democracy.

This presents a challenge for the political imagination as it assumes that our only options are liberal democracy or an untenable, authoritarian alternative. Therefore, in the spirit of J.S. Mill’s caution that we do not ‘leave off thinking’ regarding those concepts of which we take as fundamental to politics, this workshop invites political theorists to return their thinking to the concept of democracy and its foundational assumptions. 

Workshop Schedule:

Thursday, 7 March

12:45-13:00 | Welcome and Introduction

13:00-14:00 | Regina Queiroz (Lusófona University / IFILNOVA, New University of Lisbon): 'Liberal Democracy, Demarchy and Public Opinion'

followed by discussion

14:00:15:00 | Michael Hoffmann (Georgia Institute of Technology): 'Bouleuocracy: Consensus-focused Rule by Deliberators'

followed by discussion

15.00-15:30 | Break

15:30-16:30 | Sara Gebh (University of Vienna): 'Taming the People: Civilization and the Colonial Contamination of Modern Democracy'

followed by discussion

16:30-18:00 | Veith Selk (Technische Universität Darmstadt): 'The Twilight of (Liberal) Democracy'

followed by discussion

Friday, 8 March

09:45-10:00 | Coffee and Welcome

10:00-11:00 | Jón Ólafsson (University of Iceland): 'Populist Resources for a Critique of Liberal Democracy'

followed by discussion

11:00-12:00 | Merisa Sahin (University of Michigan): 'Dual-Despotisms: Resisting Domestically and Internationally in an Inegalitarian World'

followed by discussion

12:00-13.00 | Lunch

13:00-14:00 | Thomas Godfrey (University of Sussex): 'Post-Liberalism and Moving Towards a Politics Without Ideals'

followed by discussion

14:00-14.30 | Break

14:30-15:30 | Kenneth Foo (University of Cambridge): 'A Critique of the Liberal Right to Private Property in the Political Theory of William Godwin'

followed by discussion

15:30:16-30 | Glorianne Wilkins (University of Potsdam): 'Why Democracy?'

followed by discussion

For registration, further questions, or more details about the workshop, please email Glorianne Wilkins at wilkins@uni-potsdam.de. We look forward to welcoming participants to what promises to be two days of insightful presentations and engaging discussions.

Workshop on citizen participation in Central and Eastern Europe

The chair for political theory at the University of Potsdam is hosting a small informal workshop on citizen participation in Central and Eastern Europe on 19 September 2023 (at the Griebnitzsee-Campus of the university in Potsdam/Germany).

The aim of the workshop is to bring together diverse perspectives on the role of participation formats in the context of policy-making in Central and Eastern Europe, with a special focus on climate policy. However, insights from other citizen participation experiences are also welcome.

Specifically, the workshop will consist of the following parts:

1. Reflection on existing (and past) participation formats in practice (e. g. climate assemblies; citizen juries, etc.)
2. Discussion of the relevant normative criteria for ascertaining what good citizen participation is a) in general and b) regarding climate policy?
3. What are future developments in the field of citizen participation and which design and implementation issues should be taken into account when new citizen participation formats are created?

Program

September 19th, Venue: University of Potsdam, Campus Griebnitzsee, House 6, Room S 15

10:30 - 11:00 Welcome

Session 1: Reflection on existing (and past) participation formats in practice

11:00 - 11:45 Janina Walkenhorst: Citizen Participation regarding Climate Politics from a Cross-Comparative Perspective

11:45 – 12:30 Eva Bördös: Climate Assemblies in Hungary

Lunch

Session 2: Discussion of the relevant normative criteria for ascertaining what good citizen participation is a) in general and b) regarding climate policy?

13:45 – 14:30 Gökhan Orhan: Citizen Participation in Turkish Environmental Policy. Citizen Participation in Turkish Environmental Policy: Limited Avenues and  Rugged Paths

14:30 – 15:15 Fabian Schuppert:What is the normative added value of citizen participation in the context of climate policy making?

Coffee

Session 3: What are future developments in the field of citizen participation and which design and implementation issues should be taken into account when new citizen participation formats are created?

15:45 -16: 30 Paulina Pospieszna: Deliberative Instruments: Potential, Impact, and Actors

16:30-17:00: Final discussion

Joint Dinner at Piazza Toscana

Contact: Janina Walkenhorst (janina.walkenhorst@uni-potsdam.de)

Conference: Epistemic Injustice, Recognition Failures, and Social Movements, May 4-6, 2023, Potsdam & Berlin

Recently, there has been increasing interest in the relation between epistemic injustice and the concept of recognition. The main idea is that practices of silencing and epistemic exclusion have consequences that go well beyond the epistemic dimension and that influence our social practices of giving respect, esteem, and love. The conference is part of the DFG-funded research network on the relation between recognition theory and theories of epistemic injustice, which aims to shed light on the relation of theories of epistemic injustice, oppression, and violence and recognition theory, and to bring together questions of the normative status of knowers with research on standpoints, ideology, and social movements.

The conference is planned for three consecutive days and seeks to analyze the ways in which social movements can enlighten theories of recognition and epistemic injustice and their relation to each other as well as the ways in which theories of recognition and epistemic justice can help understand claims made by social movements.

The conference will be in person. To attend the conference, please sign up until April 30: https://epistemic-misrecognition.weebly.com/events.html

Part of the three-day-conference is a panel discussion on May 6, 2023 with Robin Celikates, Daniel Loick, Candice Delmas, Nathan Rochelle DuFort, and Jacob Blumenfeld on the topic of activism and philosophy.

The panel discussion is open to anyone interested and will take place at 5pm at Aquarium (Berlin, close to Kottbusser Tor).

Program:

Thursday, May 4 (Potsdam)

Panel 1: Recognition Failures

10.00-11.00 Karen Ng (Vanderbilt University)

11.30-12.30 Rocío Zambrana (University of Puerto Rico)

12.30-13.30 Adrian Wilding (University of Jena)

Panel 2: Epistemic Injustice

15.00-16.00 Briana Toole (Claremont McKenna College)

16.00-17.00 Emmalon Davis (University of Michigan)

17.30-18.30 Linda Alcoff (CUNY)

Friday, May 5 (Potsdam)

Panel 3: Recognition Failures and Epistemic Injustice

09.30-10.30 Ezgi Sertler (Utah Valley University)

11.00-12.00 Matthew Congdon (Vanderbilt University)

12.00-13.00 José Medina (Northwestern University)

Panel 4: Social Movements

14.30-15.30 Paul Taylor (Vanderbilt University)

15.30-16.30 Nathan RochelleDuFort (University of Hartford)

17.00-18.00 Candice Delmas (Northeastern University)

18.00-19.00 Daniel Loick (University of Amsterdam)

Saturday, May 6 (Berlin) - Aquarium (Kottbusser Tor), 18.00-20.00

Podium Discussion “Philosophy and Activism”

Speakers: Daniel Loick, Candice Delmas, Nathan Rochelle DuFort, Robin Celikates // Chair: Jacob Blumenfeld

Organization: Fabian Schuppert & Hilkje C. Hänel

Schnupperstudium am Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie

Im Rahmen des alljährig im Januar stattfindenden Schnupperstudiums der Uni Potsdam bietet sich Studieninteressierten auch die Möglichkeit, am Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie einen Schnupperkurs zu besuchen. Janina Walkenhorst öffnet dafür ihr forschungsorientiertes BA-Seminar "Partizipation, Deliberation & Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten - Neue Chancen und Herausforderungen durch Bürgerbeteiligung". 

Wann?

Montag, 12:00-14:00 Uhr

Wo?

Campus Griebnitzsee, Raum 3.06.S25

Bitte melden Sie sich bei Interesse mit einer E-Mail an Janina Walkenhorst an. 

Allgemeine Informationen zum Schnupperstudium finden Sie hier.

Save the date: In-Person Author-meets-Critics Workshop with Robin Hahnel on his recent book Democratic Economic Planning - Jun 8-9, 2023

Schedule to be announced.

For more information, please contact: dapprich@uni-potsdam.de.

The workshop is supported by theFritz Thyssen Foundation. 

Landes-Lehrpreis 2022

Das Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur des Landes Brandenburg hat das von Dr. Kerstin Reibold initiierte und durchgeführte Seminar "No Refuge - Fluechtlingsrechte und Grenzregime" als Preisträgerprojekt ausgewählt! Thema des diesjährigen Landes-Lehrpreis ist „Soziales Miteinander beim Lehren und Lernen“. Der Lehrstuhl freut sich sehr über die Auszeichnung und gratuliert Dr. Reibold herzlich! Die Preisverleihung und Übergabe der Urkunde durch die Ministerin für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur wird am 24.11.2022 stattfinden. 

Das Seminar "No Refuge - Fluechtlingsrechte und Grenzregime"hat sich mit der Frage der Flüchtlingspolitik aus einer normativen Perspektive auseinandergesetzt. Dafür wurde gemeinsam das Buch ‚No refuge - Ethics and the Global Refugee Crisis ‘ von Serena Parekhs gelesen und diskutiert. Das Buch diskutiert die Situation von Flüchtlingen, die in Fluechtlingslagern, in urbanen Slums oder auf der stetigen Weiterreise keine sichere Zuflucht finden. Es analysiert, wie der fehlende Zugang zu Asylum eine zweite Fluechtlingskrise schafft und diskutiert, welche moralischen Ansprüche Flüchtlinge in solchen Situationen an die internationale Gemeinschaft stellen können.

Das Seminar addressierte die folgenden Fragen:

Which moral rights ground refugee rights?
How well are these moral rights protected in the current international system?
What changes would be needed to effectively protect these rights and what are the main (political, moral, economic…) challenges to do so?
Which/ what other moral rights conflict with refugee rights?
(How) Can these rights conflicts be resolved?
Which parts of these questions aim at a normative answer and which ones at an empirical answer?

Die Studierenden wurden im Rahmen des Seminars dabei begleitet, einen eigenständigen Beitrag zu einer wissenschaftlichen Debatte auszuarbeiten. Dabei haben die Studierenden gemeinsam die verschiedenen Schritte vom Finden einer Forschungsfrage über Forschungsarbeit bis zur Präsentation des eigenen Beitrags und der Überarbeitung durchlaufen. Das Seminar wurde von einer Schreibberatung begleitet und schloss mit einer Studierendenkonferenz ab, auf der die Studierenden im direkten Austausch mit ForscherInnen, die zu Migration und Fluechtlingsrechten arbeiten, standen.

Preis für exzellente Lehre der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät 2021

Dr. Kerstin Reibold bekam 2021 den Lehrpreis der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät verliehen. Wir freuen uns riesig und gratulieren herzlich!