Interreligious Dialogue and the Global Norm of Freedom of Religion

基督徒和穆斯林代表之间的全球或跨国宗教间对话在多大程度上以及在何种条件下有助于对宗教自由规范的理解？带着这个问题，该项目致力于德语政治科学研究中一个未被调查的话题。最重要的目的是找出宗教间对话的影响是什么，它们在什么因果机制和行动逻辑下工作，以及它们是否有助于对辩论规范内容的理解。宗教自由规范内容规范的权威性观点显示了《世界人权宣言》(1948)、联合国制定的法律文书(如1966年的《公民公约》)以及将积极和消极的宗教自由具体化的不同宣言和决议。该项目审查了全球宗教间对话的外观和功能，以及它是否涉及到以理解或修辞为导向的话语。此外，它还调查了宗教间对话对于共同规范理解的可能发展的相关性。从因果分析的角度来看，有人问宗教间对话在哪些有利条件或限制条件下有助于对规范的理解，以及如何从规范的角度评价这一贡献。不同宗教间的对话是否能产生普遍的理解也成为一个关键问题。不排除所谓的对话效果非常有限，只是出现了相对较大的时间延迟，甚至部分加剧了冲突。该项目回到了话语理论、认知和制度主义的方法，此外，还考虑了更温和的政治指导形式的方法。它基于演绎的研究设计，基于关于对话对宗教间和解的假定影响的假设(例如，审议、信任/和解、宗教间学习)。实证分析的主要焦点在于跨国对话倡议的层面。这些假设构成了4个案例研究与宗教间对话倡议的系统比较：1)联合国不同文明联盟(AOC)，2)共同词(ACW)，3)宗教促进和平(RFP)，4)国际宗教自由协会(IARF)。除其他外，经验性案例研究的基础是对二级文献的分析以及对宗教间对话倡议和选定的对话方代表的定性访谈。

To what extent, how and under what conditions do global or transnational interreligious dialogues between representatives of Christians and Muslims contribute to the understanding about the norm of the freedom of religion? With this question the project devotes itself to an uninvestigated topic in the German-speaking political scientific research. The uppermost objective is to find out which influence originates from interreligious dialogues, under which causal mechanisms and action logics they work and whether they contribute at all to the understanding about argumentative norm contents. The authoritative point for the content regulation of the norm of the freedom of religion show the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the legal instruments (e. g., the Civil Pact of 1966) which were developed in the United Nations and different declarations and resolutions which concretize the positive and negative religious freedom. The project examines in which appearances and functionalities interreligious dialogues at global level are given and whether it comes to understanding- or rhetorical-oriented discourses. Besides, it investigates how relevant interreligious dialogues are for the possible development of a common norm understanding. In a causal-analytic perspective it is asked under which conducive or limitative conditions the interreligious dialogue contributes to the understanding of the norm and how this contribution is to be valued from a normative perspective. It also becomes a critically question whether interreligious dialogues can generate generally an understanding. It is not excluded that the supposed dialogue effects are very limited, appear only with relatively big temporal delay or are even partly conflict-aggravating. The project goes back to discourse-theoretical, cognitive and institutionalist approaches and, in addition, considers approaches of softer forms of political steering. It is based on a deductive research design which rests on hypotheses about supposed effects of the dialogue to interreligious settlement (e. g., deliberation, trust / reconciliation, interreligious learning). The main focus of the empirical analysis lies at the level of transnational dialogue initiatives.The hypotheses structure the systematic comparison of 4 case studies to interreligious dialogue initiatives: i) UN Alliance of Civilizations (AoC), ii) A Common Word (ACW), iii) Religions for Peace (RfP), and iv) Internationally association for Religious Freedom (IARF). The empirical case study research is based among other things on the analysis of documents of secondary literature and on qualitative interviews with representatives of interreligious dialogue initiatives and chosen dialogue parties.