This article proposes to apply a praxeological approach to study contemporary constitutionalism. The approach is conceptualized following critical constructivist research on constitutionalism that focuses on experience and expectation when studying the contested meaning of norms in international relations. It argues that the concept of memory offers an important view on the language-based concept of experience which extends beyond the confines of behavioural approaches that study habitual change with regard to norms. The article offers a conceptual discussion of approaches to constitutionalism, emphasizing the distinction between modern and contemporary constitutionalism and their respective foci on regulatory versus cultural practices, introduces a praxeological dimension of horizons and elaborates on political memory and myth as concepts of functional memory. Copyright (c) 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Die Forderung nach »kritischer« Normenforschung in den IB durch Engelkamp et al. und Deitelhoff/Zimmermann aufgreifend, plädieren wir dafür, mithilfe eines kritisch-konstruktivistischen Forschungsprogramms über eine poststrukturalistische Perspektive hinauszugehen, die lediglich hegemoniale Strukturen hinterfragt. Normenforschung muss »kritisch« bleiben -hier stimmen wir mit den vorangegangenen Beiträgen in der ZIB überein. Gelingen kann dies jedoch nur, wenn beforschte Akteurinnen und Akteure vor einer normativen Bewertung der Forschenden zunächst für sich selbst sprechen können und ihren Artikulationen weder theoretisch noch methodologisch vorgegriffen wird. In Anlehnung an kritisch-konstruktivistische Forschung schlagen wir daher eine induktive Forschungsstrategie vor, die genau dies ermöglicht und dabei die doppelte Hermeneutik forschungspraktisch umsetzt. Gelingt dies, wird lokalen Akteurinnen und Akteuren agency zugestanden und sie sprechen für sich selbst. Dann erst ist (Normen-)Forschung kritisch. Empirisch illustriert der Artikel eine solche Forschungsstrategie anhand einer rekonstruktiven Analyse des meaning-in-use der Normen »Freiheit« und »Gleichberechtigung« anhand der Reaktionen auf die Protestaktionen von FEMEN in der WANA-Region. Einleitung 1In einem Interview mit der Zeitschrift ZEIT Campus argumentiert Michael Hardt, dass die Proteste, die wir in West-Asien und Nord-Afrika (WANA) 2 aber auch in Teilen Europas 2011 erlebt haben, lokal verwurzelt seien (Hardt 2013: 27). Das sei es auch, was sie von den Protesten der GlobalisierungskritikerInnen Anfang des Jahrtausends unterscheide. Hardts Analyse mag zutreffend sein, das Lokale bleibt jedoch bei ihm undefiniert. Im Folgenden soll es unter anderem um eine genauere und vor allem kritischere Auseinandersetzung mit eben jenem Lokalen gehen. Da-1.

This article reconstructs governance practices related to blood policy that have developed within in the European Union (EU) over the last 15 years. It describes core aspects of the policy and argues that, despite an integrated cooperative approach between policy-makers and practitioners, this policy remains an open and evolving process. The European Blood Directive (2002/98/EC) and its subsequent directives managed, for the first time, to create an overarching framework for transfusion procedures. This framework consists of a number of standard definitions as well as detailed standard operating procedures, yet leaves room for interpretation and different practices between EU member states. A recently published report on the progress of transposition of the Directives into national legislation reveals different standards, suggesting a lack of uniformity of safety and quality requirements. Further, gaps in the directives amount to practical medical problems, while increased mobility among EU citizens may add further problems to achieving the objective of a self-sufficient supply of blood and blood products. This might undermine public confidence in the quality of blood products and the health protection of donors, which, in turn, must be countered by a cooperative effort of policy-makers and blood establishments.

The article develops a geopoetic approach to Russian Arctic politics. It rests on the empirical observation that due to climate change, the Arctic landscape is undergoing profound transformations, which has led to multilateral governance efforts but also unilateral pursuits. In this general heterogeneity, Russia’s policies have raised the most pressing questions regarding the country’s motivations to engage in the region. Cultural approaches to global politics are most suitable to create holistic understandings and explanations in this regard, but they lack discussing a spatial dimension of Russian identity. By developing a geopoetic account, the article complements this research through methodological insights from critical geography. Geopoetics focuses on the cultural roots and their cognitive-emotional dimension, on the basis of which claims to the Arctic and related policies resonate with a broader audience. The article argues that Russian policies have their foundation in a utopian ideal of Soviet socialist realism that was widely popularised in the 1920s and later decades. Applying the hermeneutic tool of topos, the article highlights that three features stand out that interweave into a coherent imaginary of the Arctic: first, the heroic explorer; second, the conquest of nature; and third, the role of science and technology. Analysts would do well to bear in mind how the Arctic becomes intelligible when commenting on policies.

What does it mean to be responsible in and for the Arctic? This article addresses this question, noting that responsibility has become a core policy norm in different governance areas in recent decades. The article contributes to the recent debate on responsibility in global politics, arguing that one should consider not only who is responsible and what for, but also the capability foundations upon which responsibility is exercised, as well as the underlying normativity of this practice. Instead of focusing on capabilities as first principles from which responsibilities arise, this article suggests approaching responsibility as a web of relations. On the basis of this theoretical discussion the article turns to two cases of contemporary Arctic policy where we can observe responsibility 'at work'. The fields of search and rescue and sustainable development are both marked by a cooperative approach among (state and non-state) parties, whose interactions centre on a particular ethical understanding of responsibility rather than on power-oriented politics. Yet each policy field contains specific dilemmas, as Arctic governance is characterised by a web of responsibility that comprises multiple subjects in charge and/or objects for which they are responsible.