<p>The aim of this paper is to clarify the up till now somewhat shady definition of legitimacy, and to investigate what happens to this concept when it is transferred from the boundaries of the nation state to the realms of the international arena. By creating a model of legitimacy from which an institution can be evaluated, the purpose of this paper is to investigate what legitimacy is and how important it is for the actors within the international society. The next step involves evaluating what makes the UN a legitimate institution and how its foundation is affected by the blatant disregard of its authority by one of its’ most influential members.</p><p>The theoretical framework consists of a summary of what contemporary analysts’ views of legitimacy are, which I have incorporated into my own institutional model of legitimacy. The role of institutions is central to all aspects of this study. The study has its point of departure in new institutionalism as a theoretical approach, which entails that I assume institutions to be a vital and necessary part of international relations. In my opinion they play a crucial role in shaping and constraining actors’ behaviour and actions. The paper has one theoretical and one empirical purpose; the theoretical is to analyse the meaning and importance of legitimacy while the empirical is to investigate how and if the foundation for legitimacy within the UN has been damaged by the event following the US decision to invade Iraq. The analysis of both the theoretical and the empirical part of this paper will rest upon a model of my own design, developed from first and foremost David Beethams conclusions about the concept of legitimacy. Like Beetham I initiate the study with the well known and largely accepted Weberian definition of legitimacy.</p><p>The main conclusions from the study are that once an institution is established, it takes on a life of its own, and is very hard to discredit or undo. As in the case of the UN, even such prominent members as the USA and the UK have instead of damaged the foundations, of which the UN legitimacy rests, severely injured their own reputation and credibility on the international arena.</p>

<p>This thesis is foremost dealing with the process and the consequences of the restoration of the Latvian republic after 1991.</p><p>It was examined what liberal and ethnic democracy can tell about the assessment of citizenship in general and about the restoration of Latvia in particular. Further, it was analysed how the Latvian legislation defines the citizenry and if preference to a certain ethnic group is given. The change over time of the relevant legal documents was subject to this study as well.</p><p>It was evaluated, which impact the exclusive approach to citizenship (initially purely based on state-continuity) that in 1991 disfranchised 30% of the population, had for the rights of these people.</p><p>The method of ideational analysis was used to scrutinise the law texts.</p><p>In order to gain information on the effects for the population in question, the method of effect analysis was used. This was enriched with interviews conducted by the author on two occasions with governmental representatives, researchers and members of NGO´s in Riga 2008.</p><p>The legal documents here, encompass the <em>Latvian Constitution</em> (1922), the <em>Resolution on Restoration</em> (1991), the <em>Law on Citizenship</em> (1994, 1995, 1998) and the <em>Law of the Republic of Latvia on the status of former USSR citizens who have neither the Latvian nor another state’s citizenship</em> (1995). The literature read for the purpose of this study spans generally from 1992 to 2006.</p><p>The conclusion drawn here is that the strict application of the state-continuity thesis and the denying of state responsibility for the changes of population in 50 years time are inconsistent with liberal democracy. Rather this citizenship policy resembles features of an ethnic democracy.</p><p>The changes in the <em>Law on Citizenship</em> of 1995, where ethnic Latvians and Livs were given the possibility to come to Latvia and receive citizenship automatically (even if they were not citizens of interwar Latvia), while children born to non-citizen (all of them non-ethnic Latvians) after 1991, were not automatically conferred citizenship, made the preferential treatment for one ethnic group obvious.</p><p>Due to the fact that large parts of the minority population were disenfranchised, they were not able to contest important governmental decisions. As a result, laws directed against the interest of the minority population were introduction.</p><p>As a whole, a marginalisation of the minority population took place.</p>

<p>February through March, 2005, I conducted a Minor Field Study (MFS) in Lao PDR together with a fellow-student. We were interested in a project in Laos called GPAR Luang Prabang, in which Sida, UNDP and the Lao Government are trying to improve the governance system in Laos. Luang Prabang is the province in the northern parts of Laos where the good governance-project were being implemented.</p><p>The main interest in this study concerns democracy aid in the shape of good governance and local ownership in development aid. Good governance is a highly debated topic in aid-literature, both because of the explosion of good governance projects the last ten or so years and because of the ambiguity that lies in the concept good governance. Different aid-actors give different meanings to good governance. Two definitions stand out: First there is the “narrow” definition that focuses on the economical steering of a country’s resources. The second, or “broad” definition of good governance, focuses on democratic aspects of the concept. Areas like participation, transparency, accountability and rule of law are high-lighted here. Different actors in the aid-society thus have different definitions of the concept.</p><p>Whether democracy aid works and becomes sustainable relies, according to the literature, on how well the partners in an aid-project can foster local ownership. Ownership means that the recipient is in control of the policy process, from highlighting a problem to implementing the solutions. The starting point in this thesis is the question whether the ambiguity in good governance- definitions constrains ownership in the policy process. Also, in democracy aid there is an interesting paradox: How can a project that aims at changing political power-structures be driven by those who have the most to gain from these structures? My study shows that when the partners in an aid-project are unable to settle for one definition of good governance, ownership is hard to reach. If the partners can not reach an agreement at an early stage in the process, ownership will suffer and sustainability will be hard to reach.February through March, 2005, I conducted a Minor Field Study (MFS) in Lao PDR together with a fellow-student. We were interested in a project in Laos called GPAR Luang Prabang, in which Sida, UNDP and the Lao Government are trying to improve the governance system in Laos. Luang Prabang is the province in the northern parts of Laos where the good governance-project were being implemented.The main interest in this study concerns democracy aid in the shape of good governance and local ownership in development aid. Good governance is a highly debated topic in aid-literature, both because of the explosion of good governance projects the last ten or so years and because of the ambiguity that lies in the concept good governance. Different aid-actors give different meanings to good governance. Two definitions stand out: First there is the “narrow” definition that focuses on the economical steering of a country’s resources. The second, or “broad” definition of good governance, focuses on democratic aspects of the concept. Areas like participation, transparency, accountability and rule of law are high-lighted here. Different actors in the aid-society thus have different definitions of the concept. Whether democracy aid works and becomes sustainable relies, according to the literature, on how well the partners in an aid-project can foster local ownership. Ownership means that the recipient is in control of the policy process, from highlighting a problem to implementing the solutions. The starting point in this thesis is the question whether the ambiguity in good governance- definitions constrains ownership in the policy process. Also, in democracy aid there is an interesting paradox: How can a project that aims at changing political power-structures be driven by those who have the most to gain from these structures? My study shows that when the partners in an aid-project are unable to settle for one definition of good governance, ownership is hard to reach. If the partners can not reach an agreement at an early stage in the process, ownership will suffer and sustainability will be hard to reach.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

<p>The purpose of this essay is to examine if there is any difference in the style of conversation between a municipal politician and a politician in parliament? In order to answer this question I have created two sub-questions that are more precise. The first question is: Are the municipal politicians more open to cooperate with politicians from other parties than the politicians from parliament? And the second question is: Is the rhetoric between the politicians in parliament different than the rhetoric between the municipal politicians?</p><p>My study is a comparative case study with two different groups of politicians. With the help of a survey I have tried to examine if there are differences in the use of language in the daily work for the politicians. The two groups that have been answering this survey is the municipal executive board in Karlstad and the parliamentary committee of Environment and Agriculture. My thesis is that the municipals have to be more open to collaborate with other politicians’ indifference of political belongings because they are working close to the citizens and for what is best for their city.</p><p>The answer to my first question is that municipal politicians are more open to collaborate with politicians from other political parties. The difference between answers from my two groups shows this fact. The answers from question four from my survey gives me this result. Also the answer from the third question in the survey gives me a hint of this fact.</p><p>The answer to my second question is that there exist some differences in the use of rhetoric between the two groups. Three out of eight municipal politicians meant that they often where exposed to persuasions attempt and only one out of eleven politicians from parliament answered that this was a common element in the parliamentary committee.</p>

<p>The overarching purpose of this study is to examine the role of the corporation as it expresses itself in a public-private partnership in development cooperation. The research purpose is expressed in the overarching research question: How does the role of the corporation express itself in a PPP in development cooperation? A further purpose of this essay is also to define the characteristics of a successful public-private partnership. Due to limited time and resources the study will be based on the empirical material from a case study on the Growing Sustainable Business initiative of UNDP. Three Swedish corporations participated in this program: ABB, Tetra Pak, and Ericsson. Through studies of ABB and Tetra Pak the essay sets out to answer the empirical research questions: (1) What is considered to be a successful PPP from the Swedish experience? And (2) How does the Swedish experience match the model (of a PPP) presented in the theoretical literature?</p><p>Stakeholder theory and the theory of corporate social responsibility will be used to explain the role of corporations in public-private partnerships in the context of development cooperation. Public-private partnerships in their theoretical conceptualization are hybrid organization between the state, the market and in some cases also civil society. In order to evaluate the success of such constellations this study draws on an article of Faranak Miraftab, in which not only the effectiveness but also the equity of a PPP is discussed. The material for this study was based on primary sources in the form of interviews conducted with ABB, Tetra Pak, and Sida.</p><p>Theoretically, the study shows that an increased legitimate power for the corporation comes with a PPP. However, in order for the PPP to be successful for all partners there is a need for increased governmental regulation. The success of a PPP also depends on the behavior of the corporation, and what its interests are. The conclusions drawn from the empirical study is that the role of the corporation changes from the traditional role of shareholder interest to a wider responsibility towards stakeholders. The study can be seen as an initial study for further research in the field of PPPs and development cooperation, but also for studies relating to the responsibilities of corporations as they gain greater political influence.</p>

<p>SAMMANFATTNING</p><p>Vi har inspirerats av en föreläsning av Jennifer Gibson från University of Toronto. I denna presenterades hur man förankrat beslut kring prioriteringar hos medborgarna, och hur man därigenom undvikit kraftiga negativa reaktioner. Det etiska ramverket byggde på den deliberativa demokratiteorin. Erfarenheterna av processen visade att det fanns möjlighet att få acceptans och legitimitet bland medbor-garna för svåra prioriteringar, så kallade wicked-issues.</p><p>Syftet med uppsatsen var att ta reda på om och hur deliberativa metoder är ett sätt att hantera wicked-issues. Den övergripande frågeställningen är: Vilka kännetecken bör en medborgardialog ha för att vara framgångsrik? För att få svar på frågeställningarna undersöktes följande fall som vi valt ut som star cases: Barcelona, Lewisham, Toronto, Norrbottens läns landsting och Landstinget i Östergötland. Vi beskriver även andra praktiska exempel som får utgöra ytterligare erfarenhetsbas i studien.</p><p>I arbetet med att identifiera viktiga framgångsfaktorer har vi använt oss av fem forskare inom deliberativ demokratiteori; Habermas, Räftegård, Fishkin, Dryzek och Dahl. Med utgångspunkt i deras teorier har vi tagit fram en analysmodell som innehåller fyra huvudområden; kontext, arrangemang, dialog och effektivitet. Dessa fyra områden innehåller i sin tur ett antal egenskaper. Analysmodellen har använts i en jämförande analys av de valda casen.</p><p>Vårt resultat visar att nödvändiga kännetecken för att medborgardialogen ska vara framgångsrik är:</p><p>• Syftet är att samla synpunkter och att diskutera.</p><p>• Wicked-issues finns i kontexten.</p><p>• Besluten fattas i ordinarie beslutsinstans</p><p>• Medborgardialogen genomförs som öppna offentliga möten, dialoger till riktade grupper och dialog via informationsteknologi</p><p>• Öppet för alla och till berörda av frågeställningen</p><p>• Tidigt genomförd i processen</p><p>• Systematiken är delvis utvecklad</p><p>• Underlag för beslut om prioriteringar</p><p>• Dialogen är öppen, jämlik, ansvarig och dialogisk</p><p>• Dialogen är delvis kunskaps- och erfarenhetsbaserad</p><p>Inte nödvändiga kännetecken är:</p><p>• Lagstiftning</p><p>• Parallell intern dialog i organisationen</p> / <p>ABSTRACT</p><p>This study has been inspired by a lecture given by Jennifer Gibson from University of Toronto. She described how the health care providers had been able to avoid black headlines by public engagement in priority setting. They had used an ethical framework based on the theory of deliberative democracy. Experiences from Toronto gave us a hint of a way to achieve acceptance and legitimacy even for tough decisions concerning priority setting and other wicked-issues.</p><p>The aim of the study is to find out if and how deliberative methods are a way to deal with wicked-issues. Our main purpose is to point out the qualities of a successful deliberation. In order to get the answer to our scientific questions we examined star cases from Barcelona, Lewisham, Toronto, the County Council of Norrbotten and the County Council of Östergötland. The study also includes ex-periences from public consultations elsewhere.</p><p>We have studied theories of the scientists Habermas, Räftegård, Fishkin, Dryzek and Dahl in order to identify the key elements of the theory of deliberative democracy. We have chosen four main compo-nents from these theories and put them together in a model that describes the process of public consul-tations. This model has been used to analyze and compare the cases. The four components for delibera-tion are context, arrangements, dialogue and effectiveness.</p><p>Our results show that necessary variables to make a successful dialogue are:</p><p>• The purpose is to listen and discuss.</p><p>• Wicked-issues is a component in the context.</p><p>• Decisions are taken in ordinary forums</p><p>• Citizen consultation through open public meetings, dialogues with stakeholders and using information technology</p><p>• Open for everybody and for those who are concerned by the issues</p><p>• Early in the process</p><p>• Partly developed systemathic structure</p><p>• Decisions of priority settings</p><p>• An open, equal, responsible dialogue</p><p>• The dialogue is partly evidencebased</p><p>Not necessary variables are:</p><p>• Legislation</p><p>A parallel dialogue within the organisation</p>

<p>The focus on this essay is derived from an international and national dialogue for sustainable development. The recommendation from international level has been to find solutions for governments to implement strategies for sustainable development between local and regional level. This initiative is to improve and stimulate the dialogue between the local inhabitants, officials, entrepreneurs and stakeholders in the communities together with the authorities on the regional level. The purpose is to share knowledge and find ways to learn about the natural systems and how to co-operate in the work of preserving the natural resources and developing different processes for a sustainable development. Many scientists’ today stress the importance that ecosystem resilience is promoted by biodiversity conservation and that we need to find solutions for local ecosystem management practices.</p><p>This essay aims to find theoretical approaches and perspectives that can be used in a wider framework to study co-operative processes between the local (agent) and regional (structure) level. The methodological approach to this question is to outline Anthony Giddens structuration theory and to understand the relationship between structure – agency. Further it will look into the work of Bob Jessop and Colin Hay in the strategic – relational approach, Mette Kjear and Rod Rhodes concept of Governance and also Elinor Ostrom with her perspective of governing the Commons that also includes the theories of Collective action and Common-pool resources. This is to find a direction on how to study local and regional co-operative processes and local ecosystem management practices. The result is to be used in a more comprehensive study and with a comparative analysis of land-use models in Sweden such as national parks, biosphere reserves and world heritage sites.</p>

<p>Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att beskriva och analysera hur ärenden bereds och beslutas inom två landstingsorganisationer. Fyra forskningsfrågor har vi ställt oss: 1) aktualisering av ett ärende för att bli föremål för ett formellt beslut, 2) den formella och informella beredningen av ett aktualiserat ärende, 3) faktorer som påverkar det slutgiltiga beslutets kvalitet och innehåll, 4) formella krav på ärendeberedningen.</p><p>En kvalitativ fallstudie av två händelsekedjor har genomförts där teorier kring beslutsprocessen har studerats för att ta reda på vilka faktorer som är av central betydelse i beslutsprocessen. Genom att jämföra hur beredningen inför beslut går till i empirin med teorier om beslutsprocessen har analys av två beslut genomförts - ersättningsmodell och uppdragsmodell.</p><p>Avgränsningen var att studera beslutsprocessen på förvaltningsnivå från uppdrag till beslut. Slutsatser är att det finns olika sätt som ärenden aktualiseras inom offentlig verksamhet, vilket visar på att makten över dagordningen kan ses som delad mellan politikerna och tjänstemannaledningen. I de fall politikerna har en uttalad vilja att driva ärenden har de också makt att göra det. Samtidigt har tjänstemännen också möjlighet att utöva makt över dagordningen genom att driva ärenden de fångat upp i organisationen. De kan med sin expertkunskap påverka politikerna så att de får upp strategiska frågor på dagordningen. Tre områden har identifierats som påverkar beslutsprocessens kvalitet och innehåll dessa är brister i syfte och mål, tidsplanering och avsaknad av användbara kvalitetsanalyser.</p>