Text kriticky reaguje na článek Marka Káčera Načo sa trápiť s otázkou existencie ľudských práv? (... more Text kriticky reaguje na článek Marka Káčera Načo sa trápiť s otázkou existencie ľudských práv? (ČPVP 4/2020). Argumentuji, že autorova snaha o vyhnutí se filosofickým kontroverzím spojeným s pojmem lidských práv narazí na stejný typ problémů, s nimiž se potýkají přístupy, jež chce pragmatickým obratem překonat. Nosným neshledávám ani justifikační opření pragmatismu o údajný celosvětový překrývající se konsenzus stran praxe lidských práv. Poukazem na neúplnost právně-centralistického pohledu na lidská práva a zdůrazněním jejich sociálně-morálního podhoubí pak zpochybňuji i související tezi, že jako lidstvo jsme se pro lidská práva díky jejich všeobecné užitečnosti již „rozhodli“, a tudíž není více důvod hledat jejich hlubší ospravedlnění.
Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philo... more Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philosophy, this review article outlines two complex approaches to the modelling of an ideal of justice. We reconstruct the moderately anti-utopian position championed by Gerald Gaus, who suggests we should give up the efforts to discover a conclusive truth about ideal justice, and confront it with David Estlund’s steadfast belief that unearthing some such ideal is nevertheless a preeminent philosophical goal. Utilising Gaus’s formalised model of what searching for an ideal of justice must encompass, we show why the formulation of the normative ideal depends on the very conditions of and obstacles to the achievement of such an ideal. Under conditions of normative pluralism which is ubiquitous in constitutional democracies, this means that the first desideratum of modelling an ideal should be outlining the ways of productively harnessing the diverse perspectives which populate any reasonably free society. Put bluntly, discovering an ideal requires giving up the philosophical search for the ideal. Ramifications for how best to construe the vocation of political philosophy as such are substantial: Rather than monologically digging deeper and deeper towards an elusive ideal of justice which tells us what we collectively ought to do, we need to figure out how to make cohabitation of contrasting worldviews possible, perhaps even enjoyable. We conclude the article by linking the argument to a defence of convergence public justification we offered in a previous paper.
Technology offers unique sets of opportunities, from human flourishing to civilization survival, ... more Technology offers unique sets of opportunities, from human flourishing to civilization survival, but also challenges, from partial misuse to global apocalypse. Yet technology is shaped by the social environment in which it is developed and used, prompting questions about its desirable governance format. In this context, we look at governance challenges of large technical systems, specifically the peaceful use of high-power lasers in space, in order to propose a conceptual framework for legitimate global governance. Specifically, we adopt a context-based approach to legitimacy to address the trade-offs between effectiveness (output legitimacy) and inclusivity (input legitimacy) in the governance of large technical systems. We show that distinguishing two basic phases of space laser policy which call for different legitimacy criteria helps balance out the trade-offs without sacrificing either effectiveness or inclusivity. Finally, we construe LTSs’ governance as a tool for creating gl...
The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political phi... more The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone.
The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political phi... more The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone
Separation of institutions, functions and personnel – checks and balances – Hungary, Poland, Czec... more Separation of institutions, functions and personnel – checks and balances – Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia – short tradition of separation of powers in Central Europe – fragile interwar systems of separation of powers – communist principle of centralization of power – technocratic challenge to separation of powers during the EU accession – one-sided checks on the elected branches and empowering technocratic elitist institutions – populist challenge to separation of powers in the 2010s – re-politicising of the public sphere, removing most checks on the elected branches, and curtailing and packing the unelected institutions – technocratic and populist challenges to separation of powers interrelated more than we thought
The normative and metanormative pluralism that figures among core self-descriptions of democratic... more The normative and metanormative pluralism that figures among core self-descriptions of democratic theory, which seems incompatible with democratic theorists’ practical ambitions, may stem from the internal logic of research traditions in the social sciences and humanities and in the conceptual structure of political theory itself. One way to deal productively with intradisciplinary diversity is to appeal to the idea of a meta-consensus; another is to appeal to the argument from cognitive diversity that fuels recent debates on epistemic democracy. For different reasons, both strategies fail, such that a metatheoretical step aside may be desirable, one that entails modeling democratic theory after the public justification approach.
Planetary Defense: Global Collaboration for Defending Earth from Asteroids and Comets, 2019
The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented ... more The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented under a decentralized model of democratic global governance, as espoused elsewhere in this book. All relevant indices point to the necessity of establishing a centralized global political authority with legitimate coercive powers. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a political system can be in any recognizable sense democratic. It seems unconvincing that planetary-wide physical-threat, all-comprehensive macrosecuritization, coupled with deep transformations of international law, global centralization of core decision-making powers, de-stigmatization of nuclear weapons and the like can proceed, succeed, and be implemented in a non-hierarchical international system where planetary defense constitutes only one regime among many, and where states basically remain the decisive actors. Although rationally and scientifically robust, the project suffers from oversimplification, as well as naivety with respect to how both international and domestic politics works. Among other topics, this chapter discusses problems associated with the rule of law and constituent powers, political representation and sources of legitimacy, conditions of multilevel collective action, or limits of theoretical idealization. The general message is that the planetary defense community needs to be more aware of the social and political context of its own enterprise
Employing the framework of conflicting goals in democracy promotion as departure point, the paper addresses the issue of arms exports to non-democratic countries as an important research topic which points to a reconsideration of certain fundamental conceptual and normative commitments underpinning democracy promotion. Empirically, we remind of the lingering hypocrisy of Western arms exporters, knowing that exports to non-democratic countries often hinder or block democratisation. This is not easily circumvented, because of the many conflicting objectives both internal and external to democracy promotion itself. Yet democracy and human rights promotion remain, ethically and pragmatically, important policy goals. Noting that the self-evident character of the state-based liberal democratic model is being increasingly questioned in the literature, we then critically explore a radical if surprisingly natural alternative vision: Namely that if the commitment to democracy and human rights is to be genuine, only global democracy remains a viable way of resolving the many dilemmas, as it aspires to deal both with regulating arms exports and building of accountable decision-making structures. Although we ultimately reject the globalist solution and lean towards a less radical constructivist approach, we endorse the underlying rationale, namely that democracy promotion needs to sincerely embrace normative democratic theory.
The article deals with a pivotal conceptual distinction employed in philosophical discussions abo... more The article deals with a pivotal conceptual distinction employed in philosophical discussions about global justice. Cosmopolitans claim that arguing from the perspective of moral cosmopolitanism does not necessarily entail defending a global coercive political authority, or a "world-state", and suggest that ambitious political and economic (social) goals implied in moral cosmopolitanism may be achieved via some kind of non-hierarchical, dispersed and/or decentralised institutional arrangements. I argue that insofar as moral cosmopolitans retain "strong" moral claims, this is an untenable position, and that the goals of cosmopolitan justice, as explicated by its major proponents, require nothing less than a global state-like entity with coercive powers. My background ambition is to supplement some existing works questioning the notion of "governance without government" with an argument that goes right to the conceptual heart of cosmopolitan thought. To embed my central theoretical argument in real-world developments, I draw on some recent scholarship
regarding the nature of international organizations, European Union, or transnational democratization. Finally I suggest that only after curbing moral aspirations in the first place can a more self-consciously moderate position be constructed, one that will carry practical and feasible implications for institutional design.
For download here is an "intermediate" version, i.e. including the main body of the argument, but before final amendments and updates following the peer review. For full reader enjoyment I recommend getting hold of the print (published) version of the article, to which a link is provided below (CUP/IT website)!
Book Chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al.. Challenges To Democracies in East Central E... more Book Chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al.. Challenges To Democracies in East Central Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, 15–35
Book chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al., Challenges To Democracies in East Central E... more Book chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al., Challenges To Democracies in East Central Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, 1–14
This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in the Represen... more This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in the Representation [copyright Taylor & Francis]; Representation is available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrep20/current"
Review Essay: Thom Brooks (ed.), The Global Justice Reader; Gillian Brock, Global Justice: a Cosm... more Review Essay: Thom Brooks (ed.), The Global Justice Reader; Gillian Brock, Global Justice: a Cosmopolitan Account; Lea Ypi. Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency
Lidská práva v mezikulturních perspektivách [Human Rights in Intercultural Perspectives], 2018
Výklad v této kapitole je motivován obecným přesvědčením, že lidská práva nelze myslet neideologi... more Výklad v této kapitole je motivován obecným přesvědčením, že lidská práva nelze myslet neideologicky. Tím mám na mysli, že uvažování o lidských právech je nevyhnutelně spojeno s normativní politickou teorií (politickou filozofií) a jejím prostřednictvím s esenciálně ideologickým vnímáním světa a společnosti. Nemá to znamenat nějakou pejorativní nálepku, nýbrž přijetí skutečnosti, že myšlení o lidských právech má stejné strukturální charakteristiky jako libovolná politická ideologie: „Nabízí/prosazuje určité chápání lidské přirozenosti, kritiku existující lidské společnosti (či společností), alternativní normativní ideál, k němuž je žádoucí se vztahovat, a nástroje k dosažení tohoto ideálu. Zároveň je sama nástrojem boje o získání kontroly nad politickým jazykem (tzv. dekontestace), a to tak, že jednotlivým pojmům (konceptům) přisuzuje idiosynkratické významy a usiluje o jejich prioritizaci tváří v tvář alternativám.“ Lidská práva se takto jeví jako inherentně politický pojem, u něhož nedává smysl si stěžovat, že byl nějakou soupeřící klikou „unesen“ – připraven o svoji normativní ryzost – a zideologizován, neboť takový osud je vepsán do samotných jeho základů. V předkládané kapitole v návaznosti na tuto tezi poukazuji na několikero bílých míst v soudobé flozofi lidských práv, která komplikují tažení za zdůvodněním jejich univerzality. Chci si tak připravit půdu pro náčrt z mého pohledu nejplodnějšího přístupu k otázce univerzality lidských práv. Způsob argumentace je přitom veden pocitem pomalu se překlápějícím v přesvědčení, že velká většina politicko- a morálněfilozofckých diskusí o lidských právech se točí v kruhu, přičemž se jejich protagonisté tváří, že důležité paralelní debaty v politické flozofi se tématu/problému lidských práv z nějakého záhadného důvodu netýkají.
The paper joins the emerging Czech debate in legal theory and legal philosophy on the concept of ... more The paper joins the emerging Czech debate in legal theory and legal philosophy on the concept of human rights, by elaborating upon certain insights as well as tools developed within contemporary political philosophy. Specifically, against the background of the fact of deep moral pluralism, I address the issue of normative sources of HR thinking and (especially judicial) decision¬-making. Of the several claims that are defended in the paper, the most general one states that interpretation of human rights necessarily has a political, and therefore ideological, dimension. If, however, we construe human rights as an essentially contested concept (as we should), the possibility of reaching a wide consensus on their nature, meaning, and scope is rendered quite remote – not least because other basic politic concepts are also essentially contested, to the effect that we are faced with competing visions of a good society. I further argue that the idea of a „reasonable disagreement“, which has been recently invoked by some Czech scholars, cannot easily carry the burden of reconciling competing views of human rights, for it assumes that reasonable and unreasonable conceptions of human rights have been already set apart – whereas this is precisely the point of contention. My suggestion is that theoretical inclusivity is preferable in public justification to a guarantee that one’s favourite conception of HR will be justified. This is why I finally claim that appeals to an „intercultural dialogue“ on human rights are often insincere.
Filosofický časopis [The Philosophical Journal], 2018
In this two-part article we address the question of individual identity and its place – or rather... more In this two-part article we address the question of individual identity and its place – or rather omission – in contemporary discussions about the cosmopolitan extension of liberalism as the dominant political theory. In the first part (3/2018) we show that if we consistently emphasise the complementarity of the “inner” and “outer” identity of a person, which is essential to liberalism from its very beginnings, then a fundamental flaw in the liberal cosmopolitan project becomes apparent. This is the underestimation of the indispensability of an unambiguously determined public framework which will fix and enforce liberal principles and values in a comprehensible way. Such a framework for liberalism was always the political community and then, above all, the modern state, in which the liberal identity could then be realised. The discussion in this part of the article prepares the ground for an examination, in the second part (4/2018), of a dilemma which cosmopolitan liberalism must face. In the second part we argue that the attempt to tackle the given problem presents liberals with the following dilemma: either it is necessary to plead for the institution of a global political authority (a “world state”), or to give up the belief that fundamental liberal principles and values can be realised to a global extent. We show, at the same time, that because of the character and ambitions of the cosmopolitan project, the promise of plural identities and legal pluralism or polycentrism cannot be relied upon. By way of conclusion we then ask what is the price of the realisation of cosmopolitan liberal ideals.
/ Th e Spillover Th esis in Participatory Democratic Th eory: Empirical Relevance and Normative D... more / Th e Spillover Th esis in Participatory Democratic Th eory: Empirical Relevance and Normative Defensibility Th e paper focuses on the " spillover thesis " which constitutes a pillar of much of contemporary participatory democratic theory; specifi cally, we assess the claim that workplace democratization leads to a higher degree of political participation amongst labourers. Th e paper analyses the thesis as formulated by Carole Pateman, including its later revisions triggered by ambiguous results of empirical studies aiming to (dis)prove it. Th e spillover thesis is then confronted with important methodological and theoretical critiques, the upshot being that in order to be able to arrive at determinate conclusions, more carefully designed empirical studies are needed. Normatively speaking, however, blame can always be laid on the wider environment of market economy and/or representative democracy, to the eff ect that the spillover thesis is both diffi cult to disprove and radically subversive. Given the recent dominance of deliberative democratic theory which incorporates a strong participatory element, we fi nally discuss whether a recent innovation – namely, the concept of deliberative systems – could be fruitfully employed as a fl ex-ible umbrella-type framework for the spillover thesis and the participatory ideals related to it.
Book chapter, In: Miroslav Mareš et al. Ne islámu: Protiislámská politika v České republice. Brno... more Book chapter, In: Miroslav Mareš et al. Ne islámu: Protiislámská politika v České republice. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, 2015, 19–51
Book chapter, in: In Pavel Dufek - Hubert Smekal. Lidská práva v mezinárodní politice. Praha: Wol... more Book chapter, in: In Pavel Dufek - Hubert Smekal. Lidská práva v mezinárodní politice. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2014, 27–56.
Text kriticky reaguje na článek Marka Káčera Načo sa trápiť s otázkou existencie ľudských práv? (... more Text kriticky reaguje na článek Marka Káčera Načo sa trápiť s otázkou existencie ľudských práv? (ČPVP 4/2020). Argumentuji, že autorova snaha o vyhnutí se filosofickým kontroverzím spojeným s pojmem lidských práv narazí na stejný typ problémů, s nimiž se potýkají přístupy, jež chce pragmatickým obratem překonat. Nosným neshledávám ani justifikační opření pragmatismu o údajný celosvětový překrývající se konsenzus stran praxe lidských práv. Poukazem na neúplnost právně-centralistického pohledu na lidská práva a zdůrazněním jejich sociálně-morálního podhoubí pak zpochybňuji i související tezi, že jako lidstvo jsme se pro lidská práva díky jejich všeobecné užitečnosti již „rozhodli“, a tudíž není více důvod hledat jejich hlubší ospravedlnění.
Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philo... more Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philosophy, this review article outlines two complex approaches to the modelling of an ideal of justice. We reconstruct the moderately anti-utopian position championed by Gerald Gaus, who suggests we should give up the efforts to discover a conclusive truth about ideal justice, and confront it with David Estlund’s steadfast belief that unearthing some such ideal is nevertheless a preeminent philosophical goal. Utilising Gaus’s formalised model of what searching for an ideal of justice must encompass, we show why the formulation of the normative ideal depends on the very conditions of and obstacles to the achievement of such an ideal. Under conditions of normative pluralism which is ubiquitous in constitutional democracies, this means that the first desideratum of modelling an ideal should be outlining the ways of productively harnessing the diverse perspectives which populate any reasonably free society. Put bluntly, discovering an ideal requires giving up the philosophical search for the ideal. Ramifications for how best to construe the vocation of political philosophy as such are substantial: Rather than monologically digging deeper and deeper towards an elusive ideal of justice which tells us what we collectively ought to do, we need to figure out how to make cohabitation of contrasting worldviews possible, perhaps even enjoyable. We conclude the article by linking the argument to a defence of convergence public justification we offered in a previous paper.
Technology offers unique sets of opportunities, from human flourishing to civilization survival, ... more Technology offers unique sets of opportunities, from human flourishing to civilization survival, but also challenges, from partial misuse to global apocalypse. Yet technology is shaped by the social environment in which it is developed and used, prompting questions about its desirable governance format. In this context, we look at governance challenges of large technical systems, specifically the peaceful use of high-power lasers in space, in order to propose a conceptual framework for legitimate global governance. Specifically, we adopt a context-based approach to legitimacy to address the trade-offs between effectiveness (output legitimacy) and inclusivity (input legitimacy) in the governance of large technical systems. We show that distinguishing two basic phases of space laser policy which call for different legitimacy criteria helps balance out the trade-offs without sacrificing either effectiveness or inclusivity. Finally, we construe LTSs’ governance as a tool for creating gl...
The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political phi... more The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone.
The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political phi... more The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone
Separation of institutions, functions and personnel – checks and balances – Hungary, Poland, Czec... more Separation of institutions, functions and personnel – checks and balances – Hungary, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia – short tradition of separation of powers in Central Europe – fragile interwar systems of separation of powers – communist principle of centralization of power – technocratic challenge to separation of powers during the EU accession – one-sided checks on the elected branches and empowering technocratic elitist institutions – populist challenge to separation of powers in the 2010s – re-politicising of the public sphere, removing most checks on the elected branches, and curtailing and packing the unelected institutions – technocratic and populist challenges to separation of powers interrelated more than we thought
The normative and metanormative pluralism that figures among core self-descriptions of democratic... more The normative and metanormative pluralism that figures among core self-descriptions of democratic theory, which seems incompatible with democratic theorists’ practical ambitions, may stem from the internal logic of research traditions in the social sciences and humanities and in the conceptual structure of political theory itself. One way to deal productively with intradisciplinary diversity is to appeal to the idea of a meta-consensus; another is to appeal to the argument from cognitive diversity that fuels recent debates on epistemic democracy. For different reasons, both strategies fail, such that a metatheoretical step aside may be desirable, one that entails modeling democratic theory after the public justification approach.
Planetary Defense: Global Collaboration for Defending Earth from Asteroids and Comets, 2019
The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented ... more The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented under a decentralized model of democratic global governance, as espoused elsewhere in this book. All relevant indices point to the necessity of establishing a centralized global political authority with legitimate coercive powers. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a political system can be in any recognizable sense democratic. It seems unconvincing that planetary-wide physical-threat, all-comprehensive macrosecuritization, coupled with deep transformations of international law, global centralization of core decision-making powers, de-stigmatization of nuclear weapons and the like can proceed, succeed, and be implemented in a non-hierarchical international system where planetary defense constitutes only one regime among many, and where states basically remain the decisive actors. Although rationally and scientifically robust, the project suffers from oversimplification, as well as naivety with respect to how both international and domestic politics works. Among other topics, this chapter discusses problems associated with the rule of law and constituent powers, political representation and sources of legitimacy, conditions of multilevel collective action, or limits of theoretical idealization. The general message is that the planetary defense community needs to be more aware of the social and political context of its own enterprise
Employing the framework of conflicting goals in democracy promotion as departure point, the paper addresses the issue of arms exports to non-democratic countries as an important research topic which points to a reconsideration of certain fundamental conceptual and normative commitments underpinning democracy promotion. Empirically, we remind of the lingering hypocrisy of Western arms exporters, knowing that exports to non-democratic countries often hinder or block democratisation. This is not easily circumvented, because of the many conflicting objectives both internal and external to democracy promotion itself. Yet democracy and human rights promotion remain, ethically and pragmatically, important policy goals. Noting that the self-evident character of the state-based liberal democratic model is being increasingly questioned in the literature, we then critically explore a radical if surprisingly natural alternative vision: Namely that if the commitment to democracy and human rights is to be genuine, only global democracy remains a viable way of resolving the many dilemmas, as it aspires to deal both with regulating arms exports and building of accountable decision-making structures. Although we ultimately reject the globalist solution and lean towards a less radical constructivist approach, we endorse the underlying rationale, namely that democracy promotion needs to sincerely embrace normative democratic theory.
The article deals with a pivotal conceptual distinction employed in philosophical discussions abo... more The article deals with a pivotal conceptual distinction employed in philosophical discussions about global justice. Cosmopolitans claim that arguing from the perspective of moral cosmopolitanism does not necessarily entail defending a global coercive political authority, or a "world-state", and suggest that ambitious political and economic (social) goals implied in moral cosmopolitanism may be achieved via some kind of non-hierarchical, dispersed and/or decentralised institutional arrangements. I argue that insofar as moral cosmopolitans retain "strong" moral claims, this is an untenable position, and that the goals of cosmopolitan justice, as explicated by its major proponents, require nothing less than a global state-like entity with coercive powers. My background ambition is to supplement some existing works questioning the notion of "governance without government" with an argument that goes right to the conceptual heart of cosmopolitan thought. To embed my central theoretical argument in real-world developments, I draw on some recent scholarship
regarding the nature of international organizations, European Union, or transnational democratization. Finally I suggest that only after curbing moral aspirations in the first place can a more self-consciously moderate position be constructed, one that will carry practical and feasible implications for institutional design.
For download here is an "intermediate" version, i.e. including the main body of the argument, but before final amendments and updates following the peer review. For full reader enjoyment I recommend getting hold of the print (published) version of the article, to which a link is provided below (CUP/IT website)!
Book Chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al.. Challenges To Democracies in East Central E... more Book Chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al.. Challenges To Democracies in East Central Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, 15–35
Book chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al., Challenges To Democracies in East Central E... more Book chapter, in: Holzer, Jan, Miroslav Mareš et al., Challenges To Democracies in East Central Europe. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, 1–14
This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in the Represen... more This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article submitted for consideration in the Representation [copyright Taylor & Francis]; Representation is available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrep20/current"
Review Essay: Thom Brooks (ed.), The Global Justice Reader; Gillian Brock, Global Justice: a Cosm... more Review Essay: Thom Brooks (ed.), The Global Justice Reader; Gillian Brock, Global Justice: a Cosmopolitan Account; Lea Ypi. Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency
Lidská práva v mezikulturních perspektivách [Human Rights in Intercultural Perspectives], 2018
Výklad v této kapitole je motivován obecným přesvědčením, že lidská práva nelze myslet neideologi... more Výklad v této kapitole je motivován obecným přesvědčením, že lidská práva nelze myslet neideologicky. Tím mám na mysli, že uvažování o lidských právech je nevyhnutelně spojeno s normativní politickou teorií (politickou filozofií) a jejím prostřednictvím s esenciálně ideologickým vnímáním světa a společnosti. Nemá to znamenat nějakou pejorativní nálepku, nýbrž přijetí skutečnosti, že myšlení o lidských právech má stejné strukturální charakteristiky jako libovolná politická ideologie: „Nabízí/prosazuje určité chápání lidské přirozenosti, kritiku existující lidské společnosti (či společností), alternativní normativní ideál, k němuž je žádoucí se vztahovat, a nástroje k dosažení tohoto ideálu. Zároveň je sama nástrojem boje o získání kontroly nad politickým jazykem (tzv. dekontestace), a to tak, že jednotlivým pojmům (konceptům) přisuzuje idiosynkratické významy a usiluje o jejich prioritizaci tváří v tvář alternativám.“ Lidská práva se takto jeví jako inherentně politický pojem, u něhož nedává smysl si stěžovat, že byl nějakou soupeřící klikou „unesen“ – připraven o svoji normativní ryzost – a zideologizován, neboť takový osud je vepsán do samotných jeho základů. V předkládané kapitole v návaznosti na tuto tezi poukazuji na několikero bílých míst v soudobé flozofi lidských práv, která komplikují tažení za zdůvodněním jejich univerzality. Chci si tak připravit půdu pro náčrt z mého pohledu nejplodnějšího přístupu k otázce univerzality lidských práv. Způsob argumentace je přitom veden pocitem pomalu se překlápějícím v přesvědčení, že velká většina politicko- a morálněfilozofckých diskusí o lidských právech se točí v kruhu, přičemž se jejich protagonisté tváří, že důležité paralelní debaty v politické flozofi se tématu/problému lidských práv z nějakého záhadného důvodu netýkají.
The paper joins the emerging Czech debate in legal theory and legal philosophy on the concept of ... more The paper joins the emerging Czech debate in legal theory and legal philosophy on the concept of human rights, by elaborating upon certain insights as well as tools developed within contemporary political philosophy. Specifically, against the background of the fact of deep moral pluralism, I address the issue of normative sources of HR thinking and (especially judicial) decision¬-making. Of the several claims that are defended in the paper, the most general one states that interpretation of human rights necessarily has a political, and therefore ideological, dimension. If, however, we construe human rights as an essentially contested concept (as we should), the possibility of reaching a wide consensus on their nature, meaning, and scope is rendered quite remote – not least because other basic politic concepts are also essentially contested, to the effect that we are faced with competing visions of a good society. I further argue that the idea of a „reasonable disagreement“, which has been recently invoked by some Czech scholars, cannot easily carry the burden of reconciling competing views of human rights, for it assumes that reasonable and unreasonable conceptions of human rights have been already set apart – whereas this is precisely the point of contention. My suggestion is that theoretical inclusivity is preferable in public justification to a guarantee that one’s favourite conception of HR will be justified. This is why I finally claim that appeals to an „intercultural dialogue“ on human rights are often insincere.
Filosofický časopis [The Philosophical Journal], 2018
In this two-part article we address the question of individual identity and its place – or rather... more In this two-part article we address the question of individual identity and its place – or rather omission – in contemporary discussions about the cosmopolitan extension of liberalism as the dominant political theory. In the first part (3/2018) we show that if we consistently emphasise the complementarity of the “inner” and “outer” identity of a person, which is essential to liberalism from its very beginnings, then a fundamental flaw in the liberal cosmopolitan project becomes apparent. This is the underestimation of the indispensability of an unambiguously determined public framework which will fix and enforce liberal principles and values in a comprehensible way. Such a framework for liberalism was always the political community and then, above all, the modern state, in which the liberal identity could then be realised. The discussion in this part of the article prepares the ground for an examination, in the second part (4/2018), of a dilemma which cosmopolitan liberalism must face. In the second part we argue that the attempt to tackle the given problem presents liberals with the following dilemma: either it is necessary to plead for the institution of a global political authority (a “world state”), or to give up the belief that fundamental liberal principles and values can be realised to a global extent. We show, at the same time, that because of the character and ambitions of the cosmopolitan project, the promise of plural identities and legal pluralism or polycentrism cannot be relied upon. By way of conclusion we then ask what is the price of the realisation of cosmopolitan liberal ideals.
/ Th e Spillover Th esis in Participatory Democratic Th eory: Empirical Relevance and Normative D... more / Th e Spillover Th esis in Participatory Democratic Th eory: Empirical Relevance and Normative Defensibility Th e paper focuses on the " spillover thesis " which constitutes a pillar of much of contemporary participatory democratic theory; specifi cally, we assess the claim that workplace democratization leads to a higher degree of political participation amongst labourers. Th e paper analyses the thesis as formulated by Carole Pateman, including its later revisions triggered by ambiguous results of empirical studies aiming to (dis)prove it. Th e spillover thesis is then confronted with important methodological and theoretical critiques, the upshot being that in order to be able to arrive at determinate conclusions, more carefully designed empirical studies are needed. Normatively speaking, however, blame can always be laid on the wider environment of market economy and/or representative democracy, to the eff ect that the spillover thesis is both diffi cult to disprove and radically subversive. Given the recent dominance of deliberative democratic theory which incorporates a strong participatory element, we fi nally discuss whether a recent innovation – namely, the concept of deliberative systems – could be fruitfully employed as a fl ex-ible umbrella-type framework for the spillover thesis and the participatory ideals related to it.
Book chapter, In: Miroslav Mareš et al. Ne islámu: Protiislámská politika v České republice. Brno... more Book chapter, In: Miroslav Mareš et al. Ne islámu: Protiislámská politika v České republice. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, 2015, 19–51
Book chapter, in: In Pavel Dufek - Hubert Smekal. Lidská práva v mezinárodní politice. Praha: Wol... more Book chapter, in: In Pavel Dufek - Hubert Smekal. Lidská práva v mezinárodní politice. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2014, 27–56.
Liberální demokracie v době krize: Perspektiva politické filosofie, 2019
Liberálnědemokratické státy čelí v posledních letech na úrovni praktické politiky četným výzvám... more Liberálnědemokratické státy čelí v posledních letech na úrovni praktické politiky četným výzvám přicházejícím koncentrovaně z různých směrů. Zmínit lze například kritiku ze strany těch, kdo viní stávající režim liberální demokracie z přehlížení významu specifických znaků majících stěžejní význam pro konkrétní individua či skupiny. Přesto však není možné říci, že by byl tento druh kritiky něčím zcela novým. Reflektujeme-li totiž dobu několika minulých desetiletí, vidíme, že snahy o to „být uznán“ – ať už šlo původně o boje za rovná práva žen, rasovou rovnost nebo aktuálněji boje za kulturní práva – mají v politice liberálnědemokratických zemí dlouhodobě své místo, přičemž lze tvrdit, že ji zároveň spoluformují. Vedle toho však v posledních několika letech – vlivem řady událostí (ať už jde o teroristické útoky, finanční či migrační krizi) – můžeme sledovat etablování vcelku vyhraněného ideového stanoviska, jehož objektem jsou sami ti, kdo reprezentují liberálnědemokratický étos. Ti jsou, ať už právem či neprávem, obviňováni nejen z toho, že kolonizovali veřejný prostor, ale také že příliš dlouhou dobu přehlíželi vlastní většinové obyvatelstvo a jeho zájmy, a to právě za účelem údajné ochrany různorodých menšin. Symbolem odporu proti takovému směřování liberálnědemokratické politiky bylo bezpochyby zvolení Donalda Trumpa prezidentem Spojených států. Je otázkou, do jaké míry je možné všechny tyto události a trendy považovat za projev fatální krize celého liberálnědemokratického systému, či zda jde pouze o probuzení se ze snu, který následoval po zbavení se protivníka v podobě komunistických režimů. Ponecháme-li stranou jak odpověď na tuto otázku, tak i hodnotící soudy o tom, zda si stávající systém takovou reakci zasloužil (do jaké míry je třeba nastalý politický obrat v liberálnědemokratických zemích vítat), je možné vcelku objektivně tvrdit, že takový vývoj tříští samotné ideové zázemí, ze kterého liberální demokracie vychází, přičemž ta bude muset na daný vývoj – chce-li zachovat sebe sama – reagovat. To se týká také tématu identity. Za prvotní impulz k revitalizaci tématu identity lze považovat tzv. komunitaristickou výzvu, jejíž představitelé kriticky reagovali především na problém sociálního (ne)zakotvení individuálního jáství (Sandel 1995), respektive atomistického pojetí individua (Taylor 1989). Konkrétně komunitaristé liberalismu vytýkali, že opomíjí nutnou podmínku sociální povahy jedince a že je tedy – zejména vzhledem k dalším předpokladům, se kterými liberálové pracují – celá liberální ontologie mylná, a to již ve svých východiscích (Sandel 1995; Znoj 2011: 56–67). Tato kritika měla na podobu liberální teorie značný vliv, přičemž spolu s výzvou přicházející ze strany kosmopolitismu donutila některé liberály k zásadnímu posunu v jejich stanoviscích (srov. Bláhová a Dufek 2018). Příkladem budiž především proud tzv. liberálního nacionalismu propojující liberální teorii s národním státem (Miller 2000, 2003; Kymlicka 1991, 2001; Rawls 2009; Tamir 1993). Jakkoli je tak pravdou, že řada liberálů vyjasnila svou pozici co do nevyhnutelnosti sociálního zakotvení individua, nelze tvrdit, že by vyjasnili také svůj vztah k identitě. Tento problém se začíná výrazněji projevovat zejména v momentu, kdy se na scénu politické teorie dostává další debata, tentokrát ta v rámci multikulturalismu, jež se navíc nedotýká pouze teoretických předpokladů liberalismu, nýbrž nabourává vůbec pozici liberálnědemokratického státu. Cí- lem multikulturalismu je totiž nejen ocenění (či přímo uznání) zneuznaných a nerespektovaných identit, ale i změna dominantních znaků politického a často také kulturního řádu, které dokládají marginalizaci určitých jednotlivců a skupin (Gutmann 2003; Taylor 2001; Young 1990; Song 2016). Na rozdíl od komunitarismu se navíc jedná o debatu, která politickou teorií stále prostupuje. Typicky jde nejen o otázky (ne)důležitosti určitých znaků pro identitu jednotlivce i skupiny (např. šátky či specifické jídlo, extrémněji pak obřízka nebo polygamie), ale také o imigraci, která však naznačená témata implikuje. Právě tyto otázky představují zásadní výzvu pro stávající liberálnědemokratický stát, který na ně zatím stále marně hledá odpověď. Zároveň se ukazuje, že se sama liberální teorie nachází v jakési slepé uličce, již vyplňuje spíše úhybnými manévry nežli jasným stanoviskem. Většina liberálů totiž na výtky reagovala především pokusem o jejich adaptaci (logicky vedoucí ke značným ústupkům), nikoli již snahou o hledání vlastní svébytné liberální pozice. Typickým je v tomto ohledu tzv. liberální multikulturalismus, jehož hlavním představitelem je Will Kymlicka. Ten se sice pokouší takříkajíc o zachování liberální tváře, přesto však zároveň považuje za nutné akceptovat některé z připomínek a návrhů, jež předkládá multikulturalismus (srov. Kymlicka 1991, 1995, 2001). Konkrétně pak Kymlicka do liberální teorie vnáší téma kultury (kterou považuje dokonce za primární statek v Rawlsově smyslu) a také menšinových práv – především pak pro ty, kteří se nacházejí mimo dominantní societální kulturu. Význam kultury – ale také s ní související identity – ve svých dílech reflektuje i Joseph Carens, který na konkrétních příkladech ukazuje, kde zájem o rovnost a svobodu vyžaduje respekt k požadavkům kultury a identity a kde je naopak nutné proti těmto požadavkům bojovat (Carens 2000). Carens navíc posouvá diskusi na další úroveň, když témata kultury a identity spojuje s mezinárodní problematikou imigrace. V knize The Ethics of Immigration pak nejenže obhajuje otevřené hranice, ale specifikuje i legitimní morální nároky imigrantů vůči liberálnímu státu (Carens 2013). Kwame A. Appiah (ač on sám se spíše než k liberálnímu multikulturalismu řadí k tzv. zakotvenému kosmopolitismu) poté reflektuje především představiteli multikulturalismu zdůrazňovaný význam diverzity. Appiah sice bere diverzitu vážně, při její reflexi se však neuchyluje k roli kultury, nýbrž zdůrazňuje naopak ústřední význam individua a jeho autonomie (Appiah 1994, 2005). Postup, který užívají zmínění autoři, je typický nejen pro téma menšinových práv, kultury či imigrace, ale také pro samotnou identitu. I v tomto ohledu jde tak spíše o pokus o adaptaci nežli o odpovídající zpracování svébytného konceptu. Jinak řečeno, liberálové, než aby poskytli vlastní liberální stanovisko, stále identitu pojímají jako něco vnějšího, čemu je třeba nanejvýš činit ústupky – typicky tváří v tvář identitárním požadavkům jednotlivců či skupin. Vzhledem k tomu, že však téma identity začalo opanovat veřejný prostor a že se tak liberálové chtě nechtě s identitou neustále potýkají, jsou nevyhnutelně tlačeni k tomu, aby jasně řekli, co vlastně liberální identitu formuje. Čelíce teoretickým i praktickým výzvám je tedy žádoucí nejen negativní se vymezení vůči konceptu identity, nýbrž vůbec stanovení, čím ve skutečnosti je svébytná liberální identita.
Liberální demokracie je na počátku 21. stoletá údajně v krizi – politické, hospodářské, krizi dů... more Liberální demokracie je na počátku 21. stoletá údajně v krizi – politické, hospodářské, krizi důvěry, krizi reprezentace, krizi konstitucionalismu, krizi sebedůvěry. Existuje nějaká cesta ven? Nebo kam to vlastně liberální demokracie míří? Političtí filosofové a filosofky se domnívají, že právě jejich disciplína dokáže nejen formulovat patřičné správné otázky, ale také nabídnout konstruktivní odpovědi – i proto, že období závažných proměn a krizí byla v lidských dějinách vždy doprovázena vrcholnými výkony politického filosofování. Na tomto pozadí autorský tým z Katedry politologie FSS MU v Brně prozkoumává některé nejvýznamnější odborné diskuse, které v soudobé politické filosofii probíhají a které se týkají životaschopnosti liberální demokracie jakožto doposud dominantního modelu vládnutí. Kniha jako celek i jednotlivé kapitoly přitom oslovují jak širší odbornou veřejnost, pro niž může sloužit jako podnět k výzkumným snahám. Neméně významnou skupinu adresátů však tvoří i studenti a studentky politických věd, filosofie a dalších společenskovědních a humanitních oborů, jimž kniha nabízí pokročilý úvod do klíčových problémů současné politické filosofie.
[The book deals with the announced crisis of liberal democracy as perceived from within contemporary political philosophy – a discipline which is often considered by its practitioners to be especially qualified to not only pose the right questions, but also provide constructive answers. Against this background, the authors explore some core scholarly debates which address the viability of liberal democracy as the heretofore dominant model of political rule. By providing an advanced discussion of a number of central concerns of contemporary political philosophy, the book aims to apppeal both to broader scholarly audience and to students of political science, philosophy, and related fields of social sciences and humanities.]
recenzovaný časopis | peer-reviewed journal 2020 | vol. 12 | no. 1 | issn 1803-8220 Tento článek ... more recenzovaný časopis | peer-reviewed journal 2020 | vol. 12 | no. 1 | issn 1803-8220 Tento článek podléhá autorským právům, kopírování a využívání jeho obsahu bez řádného odkazování na něj je považováno za plagiátorství a podléhá sankcím dle platné legislativy. This article is protected by copyright. Copying and use of its content and presenting it as original research without proper citation is plagiarism, which is subject to legal sanctions. Katedra politologie Institutu politologických studií Fakulta sociálních věd univerzity Karlovy Department of Political Science, Institute of Political Studies Faculty of social sciences, charles university MÜLLER; Karel B. (2018). Dobré vládnutí ve veřejném nezájmu: Lokální politické elity jako klíčoví aktéři demokratizace? Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství, 286 stran.
Book chapter, in: New Challenges to the Separation of Powers. Eds. Antonia Baraggia, Cristina Fas... more Book chapter, in: New Challenges to the Separation of Powers. Eds. Antonia Baraggia, Cristina Fasone and Luca Pietro Vanoni. Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar, pp. 124-143.
This paper critically discusses the generally recognized dualism in the interpretation of the mor... more This paper critically discusses the generally recognized dualism in the interpretation of the moral basis of public reason. We argue that in order to maintain the complementarity of both liberal and democratic values within the debate on public reason, the arguments from liberty and from civic friendship cannot be considered in isolation. With regard to the argument from liberty, we contend that because the idea of natural liberty is an indispensable starting point of liberal theory, any explanation of the justification of political power cannot do without it. In particular, we focus on the requirement of reasonableness and show that we should retain the general epistemic aspect of the reasonableness of persons. Perhaps the main reason for this is to be found in the criterion of reciprocity which provides the deepest justification of the respect for people's liberty-that is, the liberal aspect of liberal democracy. At the same time, however, we argue that reciprocity also provides the grounds for responding to the criticism that the essentially liberal approach fails to adequately take into consideration the role of political community. Because reciprocity may also be interpreted as being based on civic friendship, it provides the resources to respond to such criticism. It thus supplies the normative background also for the second, democratic pillar of public reason. We then critically examine the newly emerging approach built predominantly on the argument from civic friendship, arguing that by prioritising the civic friendship-interpretation and, at times, tending to completely abandon the liberty-based one, it overlooks the indispensability of liberty-based considerations for the criterion of reciprocity. We thus assert that in order to adequately capture the common liberal-democratic basis of public reason, both interpretations of reciprocity must be linked within a comprehensive account.
Uploads
Papers by Pavel Dufek
Employing the framework of conflicting goals in democracy promotion as departure point, the paper addresses the issue of arms exports to non-democratic countries as an important research topic which points to a reconsideration of certain fundamental conceptual and normative commitments underpinning democracy promotion. Empirically, we remind of the lingering hypocrisy of Western arms exporters, knowing that exports to non-democratic countries often hinder or block democratisation. This is not easily circumvented, because of the many conflicting objectives both internal and external to democracy promotion itself. Yet democracy and human rights promotion remain, ethically and pragmatically, important policy goals. Noting that the self-evident character of the state-based liberal democratic model is being increasingly questioned in the literature, we then critically explore a radical if surprisingly natural alternative vision: Namely that if the commitment to democracy and human rights is to be genuine, only global democracy remains a viable way of resolving the many dilemmas, as it aspires to deal both with regulating arms exports and building of accountable decision-making structures. Although we ultimately reject the globalist solution and lean towards a less radical constructivist approach, we endorse the underlying rationale, namely that democracy promotion needs to sincerely embrace normative democratic theory.
regarding the nature of international organizations, European Union, or transnational democratization. Finally I suggest that only after curbing moral aspirations in the first place can a more self-consciously moderate position be constructed, one that will carry practical and feasible implications for institutional design.
For download here is an "intermediate" version, i.e. including the main body of the argument, but before final amendments and updates following the peer review. For full reader enjoyment I recommend getting hold of the print (published) version of the article, to which a link is provided below (CUP/IT website)!
With Jan Holzer
With Jan Holzer and Miroslav Mareš
Employing the framework of conflicting goals in democracy promotion as departure point, the paper addresses the issue of arms exports to non-democratic countries as an important research topic which points to a reconsideration of certain fundamental conceptual and normative commitments underpinning democracy promotion. Empirically, we remind of the lingering hypocrisy of Western arms exporters, knowing that exports to non-democratic countries often hinder or block democratisation. This is not easily circumvented, because of the many conflicting objectives both internal and external to democracy promotion itself. Yet democracy and human rights promotion remain, ethically and pragmatically, important policy goals. Noting that the self-evident character of the state-based liberal democratic model is being increasingly questioned in the literature, we then critically explore a radical if surprisingly natural alternative vision: Namely that if the commitment to democracy and human rights is to be genuine, only global democracy remains a viable way of resolving the many dilemmas, as it aspires to deal both with regulating arms exports and building of accountable decision-making structures. Although we ultimately reject the globalist solution and lean towards a less radical constructivist approach, we endorse the underlying rationale, namely that democracy promotion needs to sincerely embrace normative democratic theory.
regarding the nature of international organizations, European Union, or transnational democratization. Finally I suggest that only after curbing moral aspirations in the first place can a more self-consciously moderate position be constructed, one that will carry practical and feasible implications for institutional design.
For download here is an "intermediate" version, i.e. including the main body of the argument, but before final amendments and updates following the peer review. For full reader enjoyment I recommend getting hold of the print (published) version of the article, to which a link is provided below (CUP/IT website)!
With Jan Holzer
With Jan Holzer and Miroslav Mareš
[The book deals with the announced crisis of liberal democracy as perceived from within contemporary political philosophy – a discipline which is often considered by its practitioners to be especially qualified to not only pose the right questions, but also provide constructive answers. Against this background, the authors explore some core scholarly debates which address the viability of liberal democracy as the heretofore dominant model of political rule. By providing an advanced discussion of a number of central concerns of contemporary political philosophy, the book aims to apppeal both to broader scholarly audience and to students of political science, philosophy, and related fields of social sciences and humanities.]