Rechtfertigung nach gleichem Muster? Eine Untersuchung von Begründungs- und Rechtfertigungsargumenten für die Einschränkung von Menschen- und Bürgerrechten bei der Terrorismusbekämpfung in den USA, der EU und Russland
Final Report Abstract
This project has analysed comparatively the normative argumentation in the EU, the USA and the Russian Federation in the field of counterterrorism and in relation to measures with the potential of restricting human rights. The analysis was based on the assumption that, should argumentation be similar, there would be a case for the existence of a coalition of ‘norm challengers’ which would increase the likelihood of long-term normative change, albeit in a “negative” sense in view of the protection of human rights. The project has found substantial similarity in argumentation from the perspective of the attitudes speakers expressed, the concrete justifications offered, as well as the frames used in order to gain acceptance for their measures. With respect to the ‘surprises’ encountered, it was interesting to establish that argumentation occurred on two levels: attitudes and justification. Also surprising was the fact that speakers tended to uphold precisely the values that their measures would challenge. The potential applications of these findings are of a theoretical and methodological nature. Theoretically, the project has produced two catalogues of categories for the capturing of normative counterterrorism argumentation (argumentation and justification patterns) and has shown the depth of normative argumentation beyond classical arguments of ‘ticking bomb’ or ‘exception’. Methodologically, this project has conducted a first-time systematic analysis of executive discourse in this area. Furthermore, it is a first-time application of framing theory and of a corresponding methodology to the area. Finally, the codebook elaborated during the analysis of the data can be used for further studies dealing with normative discourse in the area of counterterrorism and more broadly.
Publications
-
More Security for Less Liberty? Arguing for Counterterrorism Measures: A Comparative Study, Paper at the International Studies Association (ISA) Convention, 16-19 March 2011, Montreal
Daniela Pisoiu
-
A ‘coalition’ of norm-challengers? Comparing official counter-terror argumentation in the US, the EU and Russia. Paper and Poster Session at the International Studies Association (ISA) Convention, April 1st, 2012, San Diego/California
Regina Heller, Martin Kahl and Daniela Pisoiu
-
The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy, Global Constitutionalism 1 (2), 2012, pp. 278-312
Regina Heller, Martin Kahl and Daniela Pisoiu
