The subproject focuses on the threat to the international order posed by processes of rapid global change. Specifically, the threat refers to the challenge of state prerogatives posed by the institutionalization of international relations and the increasing political capacity of civil society actors. More and more states understand the associated relativization of sovereignty as a fundamental challenge to the Westphalian state system and its well-rehearsed routines.

The subproject aims to investigate the described dynamics of threats to international state order in the policy field of security in the area of conventional arms control initiatives within the framework of the United Nations system. This is because this policy field lies at the core of nation-state sovereignty, so that changes in this area can prove to be particularly significant. There, resistance on the part of states to substantially involve civil society actors and to surrender sovereignty is particularly high. At the same time, however, developments can be seen even in the policy field of international security that clearly challenge state prerogatives: One example is that individual rights are becoming increasingly important in the context of human security. The so-called "Ottawa Process" can be taken as another example. In 1997, on the initiative of a transnational NGO network, the decision to ban anti-personnel mines persuaded more than 100 states to ban an entire category of weapons outside the traditional state-dominated negotiating forums.

The example of the Ottawa Convention powerfully demonstrates the emancipatory potential of law. To advance the containment of violence through arms control initiatives, civil society actors rely on precisely this potential. At the same time, however, law also has the potential to preserve existing power constellations. There is thus a danger that juridification will reproduce existing practices. Civil society actors could find themselves in the paradoxical situation that a distant agreement would be more expedient than bringing about a weak treaty text in which insufficient or even counterproductive results are probably cemented.

With regard to the assumed overarching conflict of order, the question thus arises as to whether the juridification and increasing inclusion of civil society actors actually activates the emancipatory potential of law and argues for a transformation of the international order toward a deepening of global governance. Or can states take advantage of the power-maintaining potential of law, and does the inclusion of civil society actors in negotiation and decision-making processes serve to superficially 'quiet' societal demands for participation while maintaining the practices of the state-centered international order?