- ข้อความ
- ประวัติศาสตร์
Yet territoriality, though historic
Yet territoriality, though historically essential to the evolution of democratic representation, identifies only one set of ways in which individuals are involved in, or affected by, collective structures and decisions. Issues such as migration, global trade, and environment, for example, are extraterritorial; they are not contained by any existing territorially organized polity (Benhabib 2004, Gould 2004, Held & Koenig-Archibugi 2005, Bohman 2007). Other issues are nonterritorial, particularly those involving identity, such as religion, ethnicity, nationalism, professional identity, recreation, gender identity, and many social movements. Such nonterritorial interests are not new to democratic theorists. The main object of disagreement in making and interpreting the democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic, for example, was whether representation should represent individuals or corporate interests.In modern constitutional democracies, however, the older corporatist views of parliaments and representation have given way to the representation of individ- uals whose only commonality is residence. Thus, legislatures attend to nonresidential constituencies only indirectly—not because citizens have equal shares of power assigned by territory, but rather because pressure and advocacy groups can organize territory-based votes along nonterritorial lines (Dahl 1956, 1971; cf. Mansbridge 2003). Other venues have emerged to represent other kinds of constituencies.The world is now populated with a very large number of transnational, extraterri- torial, and nonterritorial actors, ranging from relatively formalized institutions built out of territorial units (such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and numerous treaty organizations), to a multitude of nongovernmental organizations, transnational movements, associations, and social networks (Anheier et al. 2004, Saward 2006a), each making representative claims and serving representative functions.Closely related, the sites of collective decision making are increasingly differentiated. In the developed democracies, markets and market-oriented entities are likely to continue to function as the dynamic sources of change. Governments are increasingly agile
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamen- tal of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of con- stituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies today must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by the declining trust in governments generally and legislative bodies in particular, represen- tative claims based on territorial constituen- cies (under the standard model) continue to weaken (Pharr & Putnam 2000, Dalton 2004). Electoral representation remains crucial in constituting the will of the people, but the claims of elected officials to act in the name of the people are increasingly segmented by issues and subject to broader contestation and deliberation by actors and entities that likewise make representative claims. Political judgments that were once linked to state sovereignty through electoral representation are now much more widely dispersed, and the spaces for representative claims and dis- courses are now relatively wide open (Urbinati 2006). In complex and broadly democratic societies, representation is a target of competing claims.
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamen- tal of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of con- stituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies today must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by the declining trust in governments generally and legislative bodies in particular, represen- tative claims based on territorial constituen- cies (under the standard model) continue to weaken (Pharr & Putnam 2000, Dalton 2004). Electoral representation remains crucial in constituting the will of the people, but the claims of elected officials to act in the name of the people are increasingly segmented by issues and subject to broader contestation and deliberation by actors and entities that likewise make representative claims. Political judgments that were once linked to state sovereignty through electoral representation are now much more widely dispersed, and the spaces for representative claims and dis- courses are now relatively wide open (Urbinati 2006). In complex and broadly democratic societies, representation is a target of competing claims.
0/5000
ยังถิ่น แม้ว่าอดีตที่จำเป็นต่อการวิวัฒนาการของการนำเสนอประชาธิปไตย ระบุชุดเดียวของวิธีการที่บุคคลที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ หรือรับผลกระทบจาก รวมโครงสร้างและการตัดสินใจ ปัญหาเช่นย้าย ค้าสากล และสิ่งแวด ล้อม เช่น เป็น extraterritorial นอกจากนี้พวกเขาไม่มีอยู่ โดยใด ๆ ที่มีอยู่จัด territorially polity (Benhabib 2004, Gould 2004 จับ และรักษา Archibugi 2005, Bohman 2007) ปัญหาอื่น ๆ ได้ nonterritorial โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งผู้ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับรหัสประจำตัว ศาสนา เชื้อชาติ ชาตินิยม ตัวมืออาชีพ นันทนาการ ระบุเพศ และความเคลื่อนไหวทางสังคมใน สนใจเช่น nonterritorial ใหม่ theorists ประชาธิปไตยไม่ได้ เป้าหมายหลักของกัน และตีความรัฐธรรมนูญประชาธิปไตยของรัฐไวมาร์ เช่น ถูกว่าควรแสดงการแสดงบุคคลหรือผลประโยชน์ขององค์กรในสมัยรัฐธรรมนูญเหมือน ๆ ไร วิว corporatist เก่า parliaments และแสดงให้ไปแสดงมี commonality เดียวคือ เรสซิเดนซ์ uals individ ดังนั้น legislatures ฟังชุมชน nonresidential โดยทางอ้อมเท่านั้น — ไม่ได้เนื่อง จากประชาชนมีหุ้นเท่าของพลังงานที่กำหนด โดยเขต แต่เป็น เพราะความกดดันและหลุยกลุ่มสามารถจัดโหวดตามเขตตามแนวเส้น nonterritorial (1956 เล็นดาห์ล 1971 มัทธิว Mansbridge 2003) สถานที่อื่น ๆ ได้เกิดการแสดงประเภทอื่น ๆ ของชุมชนขณะนี้มีเติมโลก ด้วยจำนวนข้ามชาติ extraterri - torial และ nonterritorial นักแสดง ตั้งแต่สร้างหน่วยดินแดน (เช่นสหประชาชาติ ธนาคารโลก สหภาพยุโรป และองค์กรสนธิสัญญาจำนวนมาก), องค์กรเอกชน ย้ายข้ามชาติ สมาคม และเครือข่ายทางสังคม (Anheier et al. 2004, Saward 2006a) หลากหลาย แต่ละทำให้พนักงานเรียกร้อง และให้บริการฟังก์ชันตัวแทนสถาบันอย่างเป็นทางค่อนข้างมากสัมพันธ์ เว็บไซต์ของการตัดสินใจรวมขึ้นทั่ว เหมือน ๆ พัฒนา ตลาดและตีตลาดเป็นแนวโน้มที่จะยังคงเป็นแหล่งแบบไดนามิกของการเปลี่ยนแปลง รัฐบาลจะคล่องตัวมากขึ้นat channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamen- tal of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of con- stituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies today must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by the declining trust in governments generally and legislative bodies in particular, represen- tative claims based on territorial constituen- cies (under the standard model) continue to weaken (Pharr & Putnam 2000, Dalton 2004). Electoral representation remains crucial in constituting the will of the people, but the claims of elected officials to act in the name of the people are increasingly segmented by issues and subject to broader contestation and deliberation by actors and entities that likewise make representative claims. Political judgments that were once linked to state sovereignty through electoral representation are now much more widely dispersed, and the spaces for representative claims and dis- courses are now relatively wide open (Urbinati 2006). In complex and broadly democratic societies, representation is a target of competing claims.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
Yet territoriality, though historically essential to the evolution of democratic representation, identifies only one set of ways in which individuals are involved in, or affected by, collective structures and decisions. Issues such as migration, global trade, and environment, for example, are extraterritorial; they are not contained by any existing territorially organized polity (Benhabib 2004, Gould 2004, Held & Koenig-Archibugi 2005, Bohman 2007). Other issues are nonterritorial, particularly those involving identity, such as religion, ethnicity, nationalism, professional identity, recreation, gender identity, and many social movements. Such nonterritorial interests are not new to democratic theorists. The main object of disagreement in making and interpreting the democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic, for example, was whether representation should represent individuals or corporate interests.In modern constitutional democracies, however, the older corporatist views of parliaments and representation have given way to the representation of individ- uals whose only commonality is residence. Thus, legislatures attend to nonresidential constituencies only indirectly—not because citizens have equal shares of power assigned by territory, but rather because pressure and advocacy groups can organize territory-based votes along nonterritorial lines (Dahl 1956, 1971; cf. Mansbridge 2003). Other venues have emerged to represent other kinds of constituencies.The world is now populated with a very large number of transnational, extraterri- torial, and nonterritorial actors, ranging from relatively formalized institutions built out of territorial units (such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and numerous treaty organizations), to a multitude of nongovernmental organizations, transnational movements, associations, and social networks (Anheier et al. 2004, Saward 2006a), each making representative claims and serving representative functions.Closely related, the sites of collective decision making are increasingly differentiated. In the developed democracies, markets and market-oriented entities are likely to continue to function as the dynamic sources of change. Governments are increasingly agile
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamen- tal of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of con- stituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies today must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by the declining trust in governments generally and legislative bodies in particular, represen- tative claims based on territorial constituen- cies (under the standard model) continue to weaken (Pharr & Putnam 2000, Dalton 2004). Electoral representation remains crucial in constituting the will of the people, but the claims of elected officials to act in the name of the people are increasingly segmented by issues and subject to broader contestation and deliberation by actors and entities that likewise make representative claims. Political judgments that were once linked to state sovereignty through electoral representation are now much more widely dispersed, and the spaces for representative claims and dis- courses are now relatively wide open (Urbinati 2006). In complex and broadly democratic societies, representation is a target of competing claims.
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamen- tal of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of con- stituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies today must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by the declining trust in governments generally and legislative bodies in particular, represen- tative claims based on territorial constituen- cies (under the standard model) continue to weaken (Pharr & Putnam 2000, Dalton 2004). Electoral representation remains crucial in constituting the will of the people, but the claims of elected officials to act in the name of the people are increasingly segmented by issues and subject to broader contestation and deliberation by actors and entities that likewise make representative claims. Political judgments that were once linked to state sovereignty through electoral representation are now much more widely dispersed, and the spaces for representative claims and dis- courses are now relatively wide open (Urbinati 2006). In complex and broadly democratic societies, representation is a target of competing claims.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ยังดินแดน แม้ว่าในอดีตที่เป็นวิวัฒนาการของการเป็นตัวแทนประชาธิปไตย ระบุเพียงหนึ่งชุดของวิธีการที่บุคคลที่เกี่ยวข้อง หรือได้รับผลกระทบจากโครงสร้างรวม และการตัดสินใจ ปัญหา เช่น การโยกย้าย การค้าโลกและสภาพแวดล้อม ตัวอย่างเช่น มีสิทธินอกอาณาเขต พวกเขามีอยู่โดยที่มีอยู่ใด ๆ จัด territorially รัฐ ( benhabib 2004กูลด์ 2004 ที่จัดขึ้น& Koenig archibugi 2005 bohman 2007 ) ปัญหาอื่น ๆ nonterritorial โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งที่เกี่ยวข้องกับตน เช่น ศาสนา ชาติพันธุ์ ชาตินิยม เอกลักษณ์วิชาชีพ นันทนาการ เอกลักษณ์ทางเพศ และหลายสังคมความเคลื่อนไหว สนใจ nonterritorial ดังกล่าวจะไม่ใหม่นักทฤษฎีประชาธิปไตย
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
ภาษาอื่น ๆ
การสนับสนุนเครื่องมือแปลภาษา: กรีก, กันนาดา, กาลิเชียน, คลิงออน, คอร์สิกา, คาซัค, คาตาลัน, คินยารวันดา, คีร์กิซ, คุชราต, จอร์เจีย, จีน, จีนดั้งเดิม, ชวา, ชิเชวา, ซามัว, ซีบัวโน, ซุนดา, ซูลู, ญี่ปุ่น, ดัตช์, ตรวจหาภาษา, ตุรกี, ทมิฬ, ทาจิก, ทาทาร์, นอร์เวย์, บอสเนีย, บัลแกเรีย, บาสก์, ปัญจาป, ฝรั่งเศส, พาชตู, ฟริเชียน, ฟินแลนด์, ฟิลิปปินส์, ภาษาอินโดนีเซี, มองโกเลีย, มัลทีส, มาซีโดเนีย, มาราฐี, มาลากาซี, มาลายาลัม, มาเลย์, ม้ง, ยิดดิช, ยูเครน, รัสเซีย, ละติน, ลักเซมเบิร์ก, ลัตเวีย, ลาว, ลิทัวเนีย, สวาฮิลี, สวีเดน, สิงหล, สินธี, สเปน, สโลวัก, สโลวีเนีย, อังกฤษ, อัมฮาริก, อาร์เซอร์ไบจัน, อาร์เมเนีย, อาหรับ, อิกโบ, อิตาลี, อุยกูร์, อุสเบกิสถาน, อูรดู, ฮังการี, ฮัวซา, ฮาวาย, ฮินดี, ฮีบรู, เกลิกสกอต, เกาหลี, เขมร, เคิร์ด, เช็ก, เซอร์เบียน, เซโซโท, เดนมาร์ก, เตลูกู, เติร์กเมน, เนปาล, เบงกอล, เบลารุส, เปอร์เซีย, เมารี, เมียนมา (พม่า), เยอรมัน, เวลส์, เวียดนาม, เอสเปอแรนโต, เอสโทเนีย, เฮติครีโอล, แอฟริกา, แอลเบเนีย, โคซา, โครเอเชีย, โชนา, โซมาลี, โปรตุเกส, โปแลนด์, โยรูบา, โรมาเนีย, โอเดีย (โอริยา), ไทย, ไอซ์แลนด์, ไอร์แลนด์, การแปลภาษา.
- I am a representative from the Thai tour
- The ITRS Has introduced new realizations
- ขอสรุปรายละเอียดรายการอาหารบุฟเฟ่ต์ตามที
- จังหวัดเพชรบูรณ์
- คุณชอบถ่ายรูปหน้ากระจกเหรอ
- Phosphate was discovered on Nauru in 190
- Now that you have heard about the softwa
- ให้คุณ
- ไม่มีอะไร
- Many add you and wait for
- ความหมาย
- คุณอธิฐานว่าอะไรหรอ
- More attractions
- Now that you have heard about the softwa
- ที่รัก ฉันต้องการอยากกอดคุณและจูบใหญ่คุณ
- 你家的门前种着什么?
- I would like to go to Loi Krathong with
- เป็นแหล่งสร้างรายได้ให้แก่ชุมชนที่อาศัยบ
- ในชนบท,มึชีวิตที่เรียบง่าย
- when she turned 18, she joined the syndi
- แพ็ค
- เเล้วนำเกลือมาโอบรอบตำปลา
- You don't like horny message right
- ฉันชอบทุกสีเลย 555
