This book discusses the relationship between democracy and the financial order from various legal perspectives. Each of the nine contributions adopts a unique perspective on the legal and political challenges brought to the fore by the Global Financial Crisis. This crisis and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis in Europe are only the latest in a long series of financial crises around the globe in recent decades. By their very existence, but also as a result of the political turmoil they have created, these financial crises testify to the well-known tensions between democracy and a market-based economic and financial order. However, what is missing in this debate is an analysis of the role of law for reconciling democracy with a market-based financial order. To fill this lacuna, the book focuses on the controversy surrounding the concept of law, thereby adding another variable to the debate on the relation between democracy and capitalism. Each chapter addresses the concept of law from a particular theoretical angle, be it a full-grown legal theory or an approach in political economy that has a particular view of the law.

The concept of global governance, which first emerged in the social s- ences, has triggered different responses in the discipline of law. This volume contains our proposal. It approaches global governance from a public law perspective which is centered around the concept of inter- tional public authority and relies on international institutional law for the legal conceptualization of global governance phenomena. This proposal results from a larger project which started in 2007. The project is a collaborative effort of the directors of the Max Planck Ins- tute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, research f- lows and friends of the Institute, as well as eminent members of the Law Faculty of the University of Heidelberg. Most of the materials contained in this volume were first published in the November 2008 - sue of the German Law Journal (http: //www.germanlawjournal.com). We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the journal's editors in chief, Professors Russell Miller (Washington and Lee University School of Law) and Peer Zumbansen (Osgoode Hall Law School, York U- versity, Toronto), for the opportunity to publish our papers as a special issue of their journal. The 2008-2009 University of Idaho College of Law German Law Journal student editors deserve special recognition for their hard and diligent work during the publication process. At the Institute, Eva Richter, Michael Riegner and the editorial staff of this publication series were instrumental in bringing this publication to fr- tion.

This book discusses the relationship between democracy and the financial order from various legal perspectives. Each of the nine contributions adopts a unique perspective on the legal and political challenges brought to the fore by the Global Financial Crisis. This crisis and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis in Europe are only the latest in a long series of financial crises around the globe in recent decades. By their very existence, but also as a result of the political turmoil they have created, these financial crises testify to the well-known tensions between democracy and a market-based economic and financial order. However, what is missing in this debate is an analysis of the role of law for reconciling democracy with a market-based financial order. To fill this lacuna, the book focuses on the controversy surrounding the concept of law, thereby adding another variable to the debate on the relation between democracy and capitalism. Each chapter addresses the concept of law from a particular theoretical angle, be it a full-grown legal theory or an approach in political economy that has a particular view of the law.

The concept of global governance, which first emerged in the social s- ences, has triggered different responses in the discipline of law. This volume contains our proposal. It approaches global governance from a public law perspective which is centered around the concept of inter- tional public authority and relies on international institutional law for the legal conceptualization of global governance phenomena. This proposal results from a larger project which started in 2007. The project is a collaborative effort of the directors of the Max Planck Ins- tute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, research f- lows and friends of the Institute, as well as eminent members of the Law Faculty of the University of Heidelberg. Most of the materials contained in this volume were first published in the November 2008 - sue of the German Law Journal (http://www.germanlawjournal.com). We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the journal's editors in chief, Professors Russell Miller (Washington and Lee University School of Law) and Peer Zumbansen (Osgoode Hall Law School, York U- versity, Toronto), for the opportunity to publish our papers as a special issue of their journal. The 2008-2009 University of Idaho College of Law German Law Journal student editors deserve special recognition for their hard and diligent work during the publication process. At the Institute, Eva Richter, Michael Riegner and the editorial staff of this publication series were instrumental in bringing this publication to fr- tion.

Jede Herrschaftsordnung bedarf der Legitimation. Das Werk befasst sich mit der Legitimation derjenigen Instrumente internationaler Institutionen, die nicht zum verbindlichen Voelkerrecht gehoeren, deren Anzahl und Bedeutung mit der Globalisierung massiv angestiegen sind. Dazu zahlen das Soft Law, aber auch Informationsakte wie Indikatoren oder Indizes. Legitimationsbedurftig, so die These, sind neben dem verbindlichen Voelkerrecht alle Akte, die als "internationale oeffentliche Gewalt" einzustufen sind. Dieser Begriff wird auf Grundlage der Diskurstheorie von Jurgen Habermas konzipiert, die dazu in einigen Punkten fortzuentwickeln ist. Das Werk entwirft sodann eine Handlungsformenlehre, mit der sich der abstrakte Begriff der internationalen oeffentlichen Gewalt auf vergleichbare Instrumentenkategorien herunterbrechen lasst, die durch ein einheitliches Rechtsregime legitimiert werden koennen. Am Beispiel der PISA-Studie demonstriert es, wie diese sich durch Konzeption einer Handlungsform "staatliche Politikbewertung" rechtlich einhegen lasst.