The universalization of democracy, we submit, has three principal dimensions: (1) the global spread of democracy as a form of government within the state; (2) the development of democratic structures in governance beyond the state; (3) the increasing conceptual prominence of democracy as a universal standard for evaluating the legitimacy of governance. There is good empirical evidence to illustrate the existence of all three tendencies of universalization. Our research, however, is designed to shed light on possible tensions and trade-offs among the three dimensions of universal democracy. We are hence also challenging the position adopted by Keohane, Macedo and Moravcsik who argue that multilateral institutions are enhancing the quality of national democratic processes.
In our project we are analyzing two particularly striking ambivalences of universal democracy. First, we take issue with the growing international pressure, especially from international law, to protect democracy at the national level (sub-project directed by Peter Niesen). The question raised here is to what extent international legal mechanisms of creating and maintaining democratic forms of government affect the democratic autonomy of the target countries. Quite like in the national context, it seems hard to rid an authoritative protection of democracy through international norms of its paradoxes. The problem shall be examined by scrutinizing international legal provisions to protect democracy from the "resource curse". The second part of this project deals with individual contestation rights in international organizations and courts, and their consequences for democracy at the national level (sub-project directed by Jens Steffek). This line of research explores the conspicuous triangular relation that emerges between citizens, their democratic home countries, and international institutions. The triangle becomes problematic from the vantage point of democratic theory when supranational courts scrap national laws that result from democratic processes of legislation, or, respectively, when international organizations or arbitration tribunals request states to change their legislation on the basis of a case filed by individuals or companies.
