Change search
Refine search result
1 - 46 of 46
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Agné, Hans
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Bartelson, Jens
    Erman, Eva
    Lindemann, Thomas
    Herborth, Benjamin
    Kessler, Oliver
    Chwaszcza, Christine
    Fabry, Mikulas
    Krasner, Stephen D.
    Symposium 'The politics of international recognition'2013In: International Theory, ISSN 1752-9719, E-ISSN 1752-9727, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 94-107Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Recognition plays a multifaceted role in international theory. In rarely communicating literatures, the term is invoked to explain creation of new states and international structures; policy choices by state and non-state actors; and normative justifiability, or lack thereof, of foreign and international politics. The purpose of this symposium is to open new possibilities for imagining and studying recognition in international politics by drawing together different strands of research in this area. More specifically, the forum brings new attention to controversies on the creation of states, which has traditionally been a preserve for discussion in International Law, by invoking social theories of recognition that have developed as part of International Relations more recently. It is suggested that broadening imagination across legal and social approaches to recognition provides the resources needed for theories with this object to be of maximal relevance to political practice.

  • 2.
    Beckman, Ludvig
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Erman, EvaUppsala University, Sweden.
    Territories of Citizenship2012Collection (editor) (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Territories of Citizenship explores citizenship transitions in light of increasedglobal interconnectedness, ethnic diversity, and migration. The focus of the book is two prone.The first part evaluates the ramifications of conventional citizenship within thetraditional physical and legal boundaries of the nation-state for the democracy of itsinhabitants. An important concern in the first part of the book is the effect on migration flowsand citizen mobility on citizenship. How should democracies view citizenship rights now thatsocieties increasingly include resident citizens, resident non-citizens, and naturalized citizens?And why is residence special for belonging to the political community? Chapters for this partof the book compare the duties of residents and citizens, ask why it matters for democraticdecision-making if its inhabitants have different forms of belonging to the politicalcommunity, and consider naturalization legislation from a normative democratic perspective.The chapters thus illustrate several democratic problems associated with traditional territorialcitizenship. Part two focuses on the potentials for new citizenship space and place beyond theterritorial confine of the nation-state. Its chapters concern the role of international institutionsand multilevel governance as guarantors of citizenship and both ask and answer questionsabout the prospect of empowering individuals and creating transnational public sphere andglobal solidarity in global governance. 

  • 3.
    Beckman, Ludvig
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Erman, Eva
    Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Territories of Citizenship: Introduction2012In: Territories of Citizenship / [ed] Beckman, L.; Erman, E., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, p. IX-XVIIIChapter in book (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    A Function-Sensitive Approach to the Political Legitimacy of Global Governance2018In: British Journal of Political Science, ISSN 0007-1234, E-ISSN 1469-2112Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article draws attention to an aspect that thus far has escaped systematic scrutiny in the theoretical literature on the political legitimacy of global governance – functions. It does so by exploring the idea that the content and justification of a principle of political legitimacy for global governance may depend on the function of the entity it is supposed to regulate (for example, law making, policy making, implementation, monitoring). Two arguments are made: one meta-theoretical and one substantive. The metatheoretical argument demonstrates the fruitfulness of adopting a ‘function-sensitive approach’ to political legitimacy to address this aspect. The substantive argument develops the contours of an account of political legitimacy by applying this approach. This account consists of five regulative principles, which are sensitive to, and vary in accordance with, different functions in global politics.

  • 5.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Action and Institution: Contributions to a discourse theory of human rights2003Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In the theoretical rights discourse rights are commonly analyzed in terms of two themes,negative and positive rights, on the one hand, and individual and collective rights, on theother. We witness similar themes in the empirical rights discussion held by the UnitedNations’ Commission on Human Rights (the CHR). There is a tendency in both the theoreticaland empirical rights discourse of not including one kind of rights, namely, political rights.Political rights are either not mentioned at all or only in terms of negative rights, that is, asrights we are assigned through a ballot-paper.The purpose of this thesis is to problematize the absence of political rights in the humanrights discourse from a deliberative perspective. The thesis takes part in the debate of how tounderstand and legitimize human rights, one presumption being that if we cannot define orjustify any natural rights another possible way to go is to start out from a substantive actionrelatednotion of political rights and a problematization of the relationship between politicalrights and other rights. More specifically, the aim of the thesis is to make a contribution to adiscourse theory of human rights and apply it to a global rights institution, the CHR, bystarting out from and at the same time criticizing Jürgen Habermas’ discourse theory of lawand democracy.A discourse theory of human rights links democratic processes with rights and opens thedoor for new ways of defining traditional democratic concepts such as representation andparticipation. Facing one of the most urgent problems on the international political arena, i.e.,how to democratize the United Nations, this thesis is a contribution, albeit a small one, to howthis could be done, viz. by finding ways to make the international human rights discoursemore legitimate than it would otherwise have been.

  • 6.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Conflict and Universal Moral Theory: From Reasonableness to Reason-Giving2007In: Political Theory, ISSN 1552-7476, Vol. 35, no 5, p. 598-623Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 7.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Deliberation och mänskliga rättigheter2004In: Deliberativ demokrati / [ed] Rune Premfors, Klas Roth, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2004Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 8.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Does Global Democracy Require a World State?2019In: Philosophical Papers, ISSN 0556-8641, E-ISSN 1996-8523, Vol. 48, no 1, p. 123-153Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The question of whether global democracy requires a world state has with few exceptions been answered with an unequivocal No'. A world state, it is typically argued, is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, different forms of global governance arrangements have been suggested, involving non-hierarchical and multilayered models with dispersed authority. The overall aim of this paper is to addresses the question of whether global democracy requires a world state, adopting a so-called function-sensitive' approach. It is shown that such an approach is equipped to resist the predominant binary view of a world state (either accepting it or rejecting it) and offer a more differentiated and nuanced answer to this question. In brief, a basic presumption of a function-sensitive approach is that the content, justification and status of principles of democracy are dependent on the aim they are set out to achieve, what functions they are intended to regulate (e.g., decision-making, implementation, enforcement and evaluation), and the relationship between those functions. More specifically, within a function-sensitive framework, the paper sketches the contours of an account of global democracy consisting of five regulative principles and argues-utilizing the notion of sufficient stateness'-that it would require supranational legislative entities and perhaps supranational judicial entities but not necessarily supranational executive entities.

  • 9.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Ethics & Global Politics2014In: Peace Review, ISSN 1040-2659, E-ISSN 1469-9982, Vol. 26, no 4, p. 479-481Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 10.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Freedom as non-domination or how to throw the agent out of the space of reasons2010In: Journal of Power, ISSN 1754-0291, E-ISSN 1754-0305, Vol. 3, p. 33-51Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper analyzes agency in Pettit’s republican conception of freedom. By understanding freedom intersubjectively in terms of agency, Pettit makes an important contribution to the contemporary debate on negative liberty. At the same time, some of the presumptions about agency are problematic. The paper defends the thesis that Pettit is not able to provide the sufficient conditions for freedom as non‐domination that he sets out to do. In order to show why this is the case and how we can address this shortcoming, a distinction is introduced between a thick and a thin intersubjective account of agency. It is argued that while Pettit’s freedom presupposes a thin account, he would need a thick account in order to elaborate not only the necessary but also the sufficient conditions of freedom as non‐domination.

  • 11.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Global political legitimacy beyond justice and democracy?2016In: International Theory, ISSN 1752-9719, E-ISSN 1752-9727, Vol. 8, no 1, p. 29-62Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite the broad consensus on the value of political legitimacy in global politics, there is still little agreement on what the specific regulative content of the principles of legitimacy ought to be. Two main paths have thus far been taken in the theoretical literature to respond to the legitimacy deficit in the global domain: one via the ideal of democracy, another via the ideal of justice. However, both have run into problems. The overall purpose of this paper is to examine these two paths in the endeavour to explore the possibilities of a third path, which investigates global political legitimacy (GPL) as a value that is at a basic level distinct from democracy and justice. The paper aims to fulfil two tasks. The conceptual task consists in identifying some characteristics of the concept of GPL that makes it distinct from political legitimacy generally, as well as showing its usefulness for normative theorizing. The normative task is twofold: first, to demonstrate that the value of GPL is reducible neither to democracy nor to justice; and second, to develop the contours of a dual account of GPL, in which both justice and democracy play essential roles.

  • 12.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Human Rights and Democracy: Discourse Theory and Global Rights Institutions2005Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This volume explores the relationship between human rights and democracy within both the theoretical and empirical field. It is a book within the tradition of deliberative democracy, although it focuses on global institutions and human rights rather than nation-state or federalist democracy. Eva Erman problematizes the absence of political rights in the global human rights discourse from a deliberative standpoint. Starting out from and at the same time criticizing Habermas' discourse theory of law and democracy, she makes a significant contribution to a discourse theory of human rights and applies it to a global rights institution, the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights. This is an innovative study that offers tools for democratizing existing global political institutions, and is therefore suitable for philosophers, political theorists, scholars of human rights and those interested in democracy.

  • 13.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Human rights do not make global democracy2011In: Contemporary Political Theory, ISSN 1470-8914, E-ISSN 1476-9336, Vol. 10, no 4, p. 463-481Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    On most accounts of global democracy, human rights are ascribed a central function. Still, their conceptual role in global democracy is often unclear. Two recent attempts to remedy this deficiency have been made by James Bohman and Michael Goodhart. What is interesting about their proposals is that they make the case that under the present circumstances of politics, global democracy is best conceptualized in terms of human rights. Although the article is sympathetic to this 'human rights approach', it defends the thesis that human rights are not enough for global democracy. It argues that insofar as we hold on to the general idea of democracy as a normative ideal of self-determination (self-rule) that is, of people determining their own lives and ruling over themselves, the concept of democracy accommodates two necessary conditions, namely, political bindingness and political equality. Further, it argues that neither Bohman's nor Goodhart's accounts fulfills these conditions and that one explanation for this could be traced to a lack of clarity concerning the distinction between democracy as normative ideal and democracy as decision method or rules (for example, institutions, laws and norms) for regulating social interactions. This ambiguity has implications for both Goodhart and Bohman. In Goodhart's work it manifests itself as a vagueness concerning the difference between political agency and democratic agency; in Bohman's work it becomes unclear whether he contributes a normative democratic theory or a theory of democratization. Although this article develops both a conceptual and a normative argument against their proposals, the aim is not to find fault with them but to point to questions that are in need of further elaboration to make them more convincing. Contemporary Political Theory (2011) 10, 463-481. doi:10.1057/cpt.2010.36; published online 12 July 2011

  • 14.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Legitimacy in the Global Normative Order: Justificatory Practices in the Space of Reasons2015In: Politics and Cosmopolitanism in a Global Age / [ed] Sonika Gupta, Sudarsan Padmanabhan, Routledge, 2015, p. 59-82Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    On Goodhart’s Global Democracy: A Critique2008In: Ethics and International Affairs, ISSN 0892-6794, E-ISSN 1747-7093, Vol. 22, no 4Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 16.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Reconciling Communicative Action with Recognition: Thickening the 'Inter' of Intersubjectivity2006In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, ISSN 0191-4537, E-ISSN 1461-734X, Vol. 32, no 3, p. 377-400Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    There is an underlying idea of symmetry involved in most notions of rationality. From a dialogical philosophical standpoint, however, the symmetry implied by social contract theories and so-called Golden Rule thinking is anchored to a Cartesian subject–object world and is therefore not equipped to address recognition – at least not if recognition is to be understood as something happening between subjects. For this purpose, the dialogical symmetry implied by Habermas' communicative action does a much better job. Still, it is insufficient to embrace those kinds of recognition that are dependent on asymmetry and concrete difference. This article explores how communicative action could meet the demand of recognition by investigating a complementary source of validity in communicative rationality, apart from Habermas' validity claims, in which ‘inter’ is better characterized as mutuality than as symmetry. By recognizing both sources of validity, communicative action can open the door more fully to all aspects of recognition without giving up its universal pragmatic core.

  • 17.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Representation, Equality, and Inclusion in Deliberative Systems: Desiderata for a Good Account2016In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230, E-ISSN 1743-8772, Vol. 19, no 3, p. 263-282Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    What has become known as ‘the systemic turn’ in the recent literature on deliberative democracy looks like a promising development. However, while much theorizing has been devoted to the question of what a deliberative system may look like, very little has been offered in terms of criteria for what is required for a system to be deliberative democratic. This paper aims to contribute to the systemic approach by setting out a number of desiderata that a satisfactory account of deliberative systems should consider when developing such criteria. This is done by analyzing the main properties of a deliberative system in relation to three essential aspects of democracy: representation, equality, and inclusion. Among other things, it is argued that when theorizing criteria for what a deliberative system requires, a systemic account should carefully distinguish between political and epistemic representation, between political and epistemic equality, and between political and epistemic inclusion.

  • 18.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Representation, Equality, and Inclusion in Deliberative Systems: Desiderata for a Good Account2017In: Equality and Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory / [ed] Anthoula Malkopoulou, Lisa Hill, Routledge, 2017Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 19.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Rethinking Accountability in the Context of Human Rights2006In: Res Publica, ISSN 1356-4765, E-ISSN 1572-8692, Vol. 12, no 3, p. 249-275Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Within liberal democratic theory, ‘democratic accountability’ denotes an aggregative method for linking political decisions to citizens’ preferences through representative institutions. Could such a notion be transferred to the global context of human rights? Various obstacles seem to block such a transfer: there are no ‘world citizens’ as such; many people in need of human rights are not citizens of constitutional democratic states; and the aggregative methods that are supposed to sustain the link are often used in favour of nation-state strategic action rather than human rights. So what could accountability mean in relation to human rights? This article argues that discourse theory offers resources for approaching these problems and for rethinking a normative notion of accountability in relation to human rights. It is suggested that accountability should link political decisions to universal agreements through global rights institutions and that the link should be sustained by deliberative rather than aggregative procedures.

  • 20.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science. Uppsala universitet, Sverige.
    Review Essay: On Forst's the Right to Justification2012In: Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, ISSN 1538-1617, E-ISSN 1538-1617Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 21.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    The Democratization of Global Governance through Civil Society Actors and the Challenge from Political Equality2019In: Critical Sociology, ISSN 0896-9205, E-ISSN 1569-1632, Vol. 45, no 6, p. 815-828Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In the theoretical literature on global democracy, the influential transmission belt model depicts transnational civil society as a transmission belt between the public space and the empowered space (decision-making loci), assuming that civil society actors contribute to the democratization of global governance by transmitting peoples’ preferences from the public space to the empowered space through involvement in the political decision-making. In this article, two claims are made. First, I argue that the transmission belt model fails because insofar as civil society has formalized influence in the decision-making, it is illegitimate, and insofar as it has informal influence, it is legitimate, but civil society’s special status as transmitter is dissolved. Second, I argue that civil society is better understood as a transmission belt, not between the public space and the empowered space, but between the private space (lifeworld) and the public space. It is here that civil society is essential for democracy, with its unique capacity to stay attuned to concerns in the lifeworld and to communicate those in a publically accessible form.

  • 22.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    The Ethical Limits of Global Democracy2018In: The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory / [ed] Chris Brown, Robyn Eckersley, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter discusses the ethical limits of global democracy, which are here understood as the conditions under which global democracy should be construed (formulated and justified) and promoted in real politics. The aim is not to develop and defend a substantive account of global democracy, but to bring up some basic concerns that are essential to address when analysing the limits of global democracy as well as to suggest some fruitful ways to approach them. The chapter focuses on two types of moral constraint on construing and promoting global democracy. The first type of constraint is set by empirical concerns, which highlights central methodological discussions of the role of ideal and non-ideal theorizing in International Political Theory (IPT). The second type of constraint is set by normative concerns, which highlights questions about the role of principles of democratic legitimacy and their applicability.

  • 23.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    The Political Legitimacy of Global Governance and the Proper Role of Civil Society Actors2018In: Res Publica, ISSN 1356-4765, E-ISSN 1572-8692, Vol. 24, no 1, p. 133-155Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, two claims are made. The main claim is that a fruitful approach for theorizing the political legitimacy of global governance and the proper normative role of civil society actors is the so-called 'function-sensitive' approach. The underlying idea of this approach is that the demands of legitimacy may vary depending on function and the relationship between functions. Within this function-sensitive framework, six functions in global governance are analyzed and six principles of legitimacy defended, together constituting a minimalist account of political legitimacy. This account suggests that civil society actors may strengthen political legitimacy by performing five of these functions under certain conditions and insofar as the proposed normative political principles are fulfilled: problem identification, agenda-setting, implementation, enforcement and monitoring, and evaluation. The second claim is critical and is chiselled out against the backdrop of this function-sensitive account, through which I demonstrate that much vagueness and confusion with regard to the proper role of civil society actors for strengthening the political legitimacy of global governance could be traced to the so-called 'transmission belt' model, which has gained popularity in international political theory. This model depicts civil society as a transmission belt between the public sphere and decision-making loci, where it is assumed that civil society actors contribute to the strengthening of political legitimacy by transmitting peoples' preferences, beliefs, and opinions from the former to the latter space by indirectly or directly influencing the decision-making. It is argued that this picture is misleading and generates erroneous prescriptions of how civil society actors should act to increase political legitimacy.

  • 24.
    Erman, Eva
    Uppsala University, Sweden.
    The Recognitive Practices of Declaring and Constituting Statehood2013In: International Theory, ISSN 1752-9719, E-ISSN 1752-9727, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 129-150Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    What is 'critical' of critical theory?2017In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, ISSN 0191-4537, E-ISSN 1461-734X, Vol. 43, no 3, p. 300-301Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 26.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    What is wrong with agonistic pluralism?: Reflections on conflict in democratic theory2009In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, ISSN 0191-4537, E-ISSN 1461-734X, Vol. 35, no 9, p. 1039-1062Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    During the last couple of decades, concurrently with an increased awareness of the complexity of ethical conflicts, political theorists have directed attention to how constitutional democracy should cope with a fact of incommensurable doctrines. Poststructuralists such as Chantal Mouffe claim that ethical conflicts are fundamentally irreconcilable, which is indeed a view shared by many liberal theorists. The question of whether ethical conflicts are in principle irreconcilable is an important one since the answer has implications for what democratic institutions are desirable. In light of this question the article investigates the notion of conflict in agonistic pluralism and discourse theory. At first glance, Mouffe's agonism seems apt to accommodate ethical conflict in democratic governance, since it focuses on conflict as the core of politics, whereas Habermasian deliberative democracy seems inappropriate for this task, as it focuses on consensus. However, through an inquiry into the conditions of conflict this article will argue the opposite, namely, that conflict cannot be adequately understood within Mouffe's agonistic framework. The thesis defended is (1) that discourse theory offers a more accurate account of conflict than agonistic theory because it embraces the idea that deliberation is constitutive of conflict, and (2) that some of Habermas' assumptions concerning ethical discourse need to be revised in order for his democratic theory to fully accommodate this insight.

  • 27.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Kuyper, Jonathan W.
    Global Democracy and Feasibility2019In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230, E-ISSN 1743-8772Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    While methodological and metatheoretical questions pertaining to feasibility have been intensively discussed in the philosophical literature on justice in recent years, these discussions have not permeated the debate on global democracy. The overall aim of this article is to demonstrate the fruitfulness of importing some of the advancements made in this literature into the debate on global democracy, as well as to develop aspects that are relevant for explaining the role of feasibility in normative political theory. This is done by pursuing two arguments. First, to advance the work on the role of feasibility, we suggest as intuitively plausible two metatheoretical constraints on normative political theorizing – the ‘fitness constraint’ and the ‘functional constraint’ – which elucidate a number of aspects relevant in determining proper feasibility constraints for an account in political theory. Secondly, to illustrate the usefulness of this feasibility framework, we sketch an account of global democracy consisting of normative principles which respond differently to these aspects and thus are tied to different feasibility constraints as well as exemplify how it may be applied in practice.

  • 28.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    A World of Possibilities: The Place of Feasibility in Political Theory2019In: Res Publica, ISSN 1356-4765, E-ISSN 1572-8692Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Although the discussion about feasibility in political theory is still in its infancy, some important progress has been made in the last years to advance our understanding. In this paper, we intend to make a contribution to this growing literature by investigating the proper place of feasibility considerations in political theory. A motivating force behind this study is a suspicion that many presumptions made about feasibility in several current debates—such as that between practice-independence and practice-dependence, ideal and non-ideal theory, and political moralism and political realism—are too rigid and underestimate the numerous different ways in which feasibility concerns may enter into our theorizing. To chisel out this feasibility space, our aim is to suggest two metatheoretical constraints on normative political principles as intuitively plausible, the so-called ‘fitness constraint’ and the ‘functional constraint’, through which we elucidate five central aspects for determining proper feasibility constraints of an account in political theory.

  • 29.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Critical Dialogue: On Goodhart’s Injustice: Political Theory for the Real World2019In: Perspectives on Politics, ISSN 1537-5927, E-ISSN 1541-0986, Vol. 17, no 4Article, book review (Refereed)
  • 30.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Critical Dialogue: Reply to Goodhart2019In: Perspectives on Politics, ISSN 1537-5927, E-ISSN 1541-0986, Vol. 17, no 4Article, book review (Refereed)
  • 31.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    How practices do not matter2019In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230, E-ISSN 1743-8772, Vol. 22, no 1, p. 103-118Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In his most recent work, Sangiovanni has retreated from his stronger claims about practice-dependence. Instead of claiming that principles of justice must be practice-dependent, he now expresses his claim in a modal form, arguing that there are several ways in which practices may matter. While merely mapping out the logical space of possibilities seems to look like a modest ambition, the conditions for when practices do matter according to Sangiovanni’s analysis are easily met in actuality. Consequently, if he is right, the practice-dependent approach covers a significant number of political theories. Sangiovanni’s main claim is that higher-level principles with an open texture, which include most higher-level principles in political philosophy, justify a practice-dependent method in the form of a mode of application called ‘mediated deduction,’ according to which a thoroughgoing investigation is made of the nature of the target practice. Our task in this paper is to reject this claim. This is done in two steps. First, we question Sangiovanni’s distinction between instrumental application and mediated deduction, arguing that it remains unclear whether it marks out two sufficiently distinct ‘modes’ to do any theoretical work. Second, we argue that the practice-dependent method is not required even if two such modes are established.

  • 32.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Political Legitimacy and the Unreliability of Language2016In: Public Reason, ISSN 2065-7285, E-ISSN 2065-8958, Vol. 8, no 1-2, p. 81-89Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Many political theorists in current debates have argued that pragmatist theories of mind and language place certain constraints on our normative political theories. In a couple of papers, we have accused these pragmatically influenced political theorists of misapplication of otherwise perfectly valid ideas. In a recent paper, one of the targets of our critique, Thomas Fossen, has retorted that we have misrepresented the role that a pragmatist theory of language plays in these accounts. In this paper, we claim that Fossen’s attempt to chisel out a role for his account in normative political theory rehearses the same problematic view of the utility of theories of language as his previous iterations. We argue that Fossen’s account is still guilty of the fallacious claim that a pragmatist theory of language (in his case Robert Brandom’s account) has implications for the form and justification of theories of political legitimacy. We specifically focus on three flaws with his current reply: the idea that criteria and conditions are problematic on a pragmatist outlook, the idea that a pragmatist linguistic account applied to a particular political context will have a distinct political-theoretical payoff, and the idea that a fundamental linguistic level of analysis supplies normative guidance for theorizing political legitimacy.

  • 33.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Political Legitimacy for Our World: Where is Political Realism Going?2018In: Journal of Politics, ISSN 0022-3816, E-ISSN 1468-2508, Vol. 80, no 2, p. 525-538Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A common denominator of recent proposals suggested by political realists has been a rather pessimistic view of what we may rightfully demand of political authorities in terms of legitimacy. In our analysis, three main justificatory strategies are utilized by realists, each supposedly generating normative premises for this “low bar conclusion.” These strategies make use of the concept of politics, the constitutive features of politics, and feasibility constraints, respectively. In this article, we make three claims: first, that the two justificatory strategies of utilizing the concept of politics and the constitutive features of politics fail, since they rely on implausible normative premises; second, that while the feasibility strategy relies on reasonable premises, the low bar conclusion does not follow from them; third, that relativist premises fit better with the low bar conclusion, but that this also makes the realist position less attractive and casts doubt on several of its basic assumptions.

  • 34.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Practice-Dependence and Epistemic Uncertainty2017In: Journal of Global Ethics, ISSN 1744-9626, E-ISSN 1744-9634, Vol. 13, no 2, p. 187-205Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A shared presumption among practice-dependent theorists is that a principle of justice is dependent on the function or aim of the practice to which it is supposed to be applied. In recent contributions to this debate, the condition of epistemic uncertainty plays a significant role for motivating and justifying a practice-dependent view. This paper analyses the role of epistemic uncertainty in justifying a practice-dependent approach. We see two kinds of epistemic uncertainty allegedly playing this justificatory role. What we call ‘normative epistemic uncertainty’ emerges from dealing with the problem of value uncertainty in justifying applied principles when our higher-level principles are open-textured, that is, when their content is too vague or unclear to generate determinate prescriptions. What we call ‘descriptive epistemic uncertainty’ emerges from dealing with uncertainty about empirical facts, such as the problem of moral assurance, that is, the problem that the requirements of justice cannot go beyond arrangements that we can know with reasonable confidence that we can jointly establish and maintain. In both cases, practice-dependent theorists conclude that the condition of epistemic uncertainty justifies a practice-dependent approach, which puts certain restrictions on theorizing regulative principles and has wide-ranging practical implications for the scope of justice. Our claim in this paper is that neither kind of epistemic uncertainty justifies a practice-dependent approach.

  • 35.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Practices and Principles: On the Methodological Turn in Political Theory2015In: Philosophy Compass, ISSN 1747-9991, E-ISSN 1747-9991, Vol. 10, no 8, p. 533-546Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The question of what role social and political practices should play in the justification of normative principles has received renewed attention in post-millennium political philosophy. Several current debates express dissatisfaction with the methodology adopted in mainstream political theory, taking the form of a criticism of so-called ‘ideal theory’ from ‘non-ideal’ theory, of ‘practice-independent’ theory from ‘practice-dependent’ theory, and of ‘political moralism’ from ‘political realism’. While the problem of action-guidance lies at the heart of these concerns, the critics also share a number of methodological assumptions. Above all, their methodology is practice-dependent in the sense that an existing (social, political, or institutional) practice is assumed to put substantial limitations on the appropriate normative principles for regulating it. In other words, we cannot formulate and justify an appropriate principle without first understanding the practice (or its point and purpose) this principle is supposed to govern. The aim of this paper is to map out and analyze the common denominators of these debates with regard to methodological commitments. We will investigate how this practice-dependent method may be understood and motivated. In particular, we point to challenges that must be met in order for the position to remain both distinct and attractive.

  • 36.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Pragmatism and Epistemic Democracy2019In: The Routledge Handbook of Social Epistemology / [ed] Miranda Fricker, Peter J Graham, David Henderson, Nikolaj J.L.L. Pedersen, Routledge, 2019Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 37.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, NiklasStockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    Risk and Moral Theory: Volume 21, Issue 2, April 20182018Collection (editor) (Refereed)
  • 38.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    The Interdependence of Risk and Moral Theory2018In: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, ISSN 1386-2820, E-ISSN 1572-8447, Vol. 21, no 2, p. 207-216Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 39.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.
    The Practical Turn in Political Theory2018Book (Refereed)
  • 40.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    What distinguishes the practice - dependent approach to justice?2016In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, ISSN 0191-4537, E-ISSN 1461-734X, Vol. 42, no 1, p. 3-23Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The practice-dependent approach to justice has received a lot of attention in post-millennium political philosophy. It has been developed in different directions and its normative implications have been criticized, but little attention has been directed to the very distinction between practice-dependence and practice-independence and the question of what theoretically differentiates a practice-dependent account from mainstream practice-independent accounts. The core premises of the practice-dependent approach, proponents argue, are meta-normative and methodological. A key feature is the presumption that a concept of justice is dependent on the function or aim of the social practices to which it is supposed to be applied. Closely related to this meta-normative thesis is an interpretive methodology for deriving principles of justice from facts about existing practices, in particular regarding their point and purpose. These two premises, practice-dependent theorists claim, differentiate their account since (1) they are not accepted by practice-independent accounts and (2) they justify different principles of justice than practice-independent accounts. Our aim in this article is to refute both (1) and (2), demonstrating that practice-independent accounts may indeed accept the meta-normative and methodological premises of the practice-dependent accounts, and that we are given no theoretical reason to think that practice-dependent accounts justify other principles of justice for a practice than do practice-independent accounts. In other words, practice-dependent theorists have not substantiated their claim that practice-dependence is theoretically differentiated from mainstream accounts. When practice-dependent proponents argue for other principles of justice than mainstream theorists, it will be for the usual reason in normative theory: their first-order normative arguments differ.

  • 41.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    What Not to Expect from the Pragmatic Turn in Political Theory2015In: European Journal of Political Theory, ISSN 1474-8851, E-ISSN 1741-2730, Vol. 14, no 2, p. 121-140Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The central ideas coming out of the so-called pragmatic turn in philosophy have set in motion what may be described as a pragmatic turn in normative political theory. It has become commonplace among political theorists to draw on theories of language and meaning in theorising democracy, pluralism, justice, etc. The aim of this paper is to explore attempts by political theorists to use theories of language and meaning for such normative purposes. Focusing on Wittgenstein's account, it is argued that these attempts are unsuccessful. It is shown that pragmatically influenced political theorists draw faulty epistemological, ontological and semantic conclusions from Wittgenstein's view in their normative theorising, and it is argued that pragmatically influenced theories of language and meaning, however full of insight, cannot be put to substantial normative use in political theory. The general scope of the thesis is motivated by pointing to the general form of the argument and by moving beyond Wittgenstein to other philosophers of mind and language, illustrating how similar overextensions are made with regard to Robert Brandom's theory of language and meaning.

  • 42.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Why Democracy Cannot be Grounded in Epistemic Principles2016In: Social Theory and Practice, ISSN 0037-802X, E-ISSN 2154-123X, Vol. 42, no 3, p. 449-473Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In recent years, philosophers influenced by Peirce's pragmatism have contributed to the democracy debate by offering not simply a justification of democracy that relies on epistemic as well as moral presumptions, but a justification on purely epistemic grounds, that is, without recourse to any moral values or principles. In a nutshell, this pragmatist epistemic argument takes as its starting-point (1) a few fundamental epistemic principles we cannot reasonably deny, and goes on to claim that (2) a number of interpersonal epistemic commitments follow, which in turn (3) justify democracy in a fullfledged, deliberative sense. In light of the fact of reasonable pluralism, this freestanding (nonmoral) epistemic justification of democracy is allegedly superior to the mainstream, morally anchored liberal alternatives, because epistemic principles are universally shared despite moral disagreement. The pragmatist epistemic approach has been praised for being a valuable contribution to democratic theory, but few attempts have so far been made to systematically scrutinize the argument as a whole. The present paper sets out to do that. In particular, our investigation focuses on the underappreciated but central coherence form of the pragmatist epistemic argument: the central claim that in order to be an internally coherent believer, one must accept democracy. While we endorse the fundamental premise (1) for the sake of argument, our analysis shows that the argument fails in both of the two further steps, (2) and (3). More specifically, the epistemic principles are too weak to entail the suggested interpersonal epistemic commitments; and even if these epistemic commitments are granted, they are insufficient to ground democracy.

  • 43.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Möller, Niklas
    Why Political Realists Should Not Be Afraid of Moral Values2015In: Journal of Philosophical Research (JPR), ISSN 1053-8364, E-ISSN 2153-7984, Vol. 40, p. 459-464Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In a previous article, we unpacked the so-called "ethics first premise"-the idea that ethics is "prior" to politics when theorizing political legitimacy-that is denied by political realists. We defended a "justificatory" reading of this premise, according to which political justification is irreducibly moral in the sense that moral values are among the values that ground political legitimacy. We called this the "necessity thesis." In this paper we respond to two challenges that Robert Jubb and Enzo Rossi raise against our proposal. Their first claim is that our argument for the necessity thesis is question begging, since we assume rather than show that freedom and equality are moral values. The second claim is that Bernard Williams's Basic Legitimacy Demand demonstrates the possibility of giving political legitimacy a non-moral foundation, since it allows for a distinction to be made between politics and sheer domination. We refute both claims.

  • 44.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Uhlin, Anders
    Conclusion: Transnational Actors and Global Democracy2010In: Legitimacy Beyond the State? Re-examining the Democratic Credentials of Transnational Actors / [ed] Eva Erman, Anders Uhlin, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 194-213Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This concluding chapter elaborates on the findings of the volume and raises a number of issues pertaining to normative theorizing on democracy beyond the state. Drawing on the individual chapters, it offers a comprehensive analysis of the different democratic requirements applicable to different types of transnational actors (TNAs). We discuss the question of whether different kinds of TNAs necessarily have to be democratic in the same way and to the same extent. We also pay attention to potential trade-offs between different democratic values. Moreover, we analyze the potential roles of TNAs in global democracy, considering formal and informal tracks for linking constituencies to political authority. One principle underlying much scholarship on global democracy — including this volume — is the all-affected principle. A problem in the contemporary debate, however, is that this principle is vaguely defined and presupposed rather than problematized and carefully elaborated. In light of the empirical and theoretical contributions of this volume, we revisit this debate with the aim of sorting out some of the issues that are in need of further attention. We also discuss how the market economy may relate to global democracy, an issue highlighted by the prominence of market actors — not only civil society actors — among the TNAs influencing global governance. It is argued that more normative theoretical work needs to be done in addressing the role of market actors in global democracy. Finally, after having devoted the whole book to issues of democratic legitimacy, we conclude with a brief discussion of other sources of legitimacy linked to TNAs and global governance, which are in need of further elaboration.

  • 45.
    Erman, Eva
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Uhlin, Anders
    Legitimacy Beyond the Nation-State? Re-examining the Democratic Credentials of Transnational Actors2010Collection (editor) (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Combining case studies with normative theory, this book analyzes the democratic credentials of transnational actors participating in global governance, ranging from corporations and philanthropic foundations to NGOs and social movements. This leads to innovative interpretations of democratic legitimacy in a transnational context. 

  • 46. Higgott, Richard
    et al.
    Erman, Eva
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Deliberative global governance and the question of legitimacy: what can we learn from the WTO?2010In: Review of International Studies, ISSN 0260-2105, E-ISSN 1469-9044, Vol. 36, no 2, p. 449-470Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The integration of the global economy through the liberalisation of the trade regime, the deregulation of financial markets and the privatisation of state assets has led to what we now commonly call 'globalisation'. These processes, however, have not been accompanied by a comparable development of the global polity. At the same time, it is increasingly recognised in policy circles that without the development of norms, institutions and processes to manage globalisation many of the advantages it has brought the world could be undone by a failure to mitigate the excesses and negative consequences that emanate from it, especially for large sections of the world's poor. This article addresses two broad questions: what might we understand by global governance in an era of increasingly contested globalisation and what role might international organisations play in making it more (democratically) legitimate? It addresses these questions in three steps. First, it proposes a heuristic definition that identifies two key strands of 'governance' in the contemporary debate. It is argued that global governance understood as effective and efficient collective decision-making and problem solving is insufficient for normative reasons and must, in addition, be complemented by global governance understood as the democratic legitimation of policy-making. In a second step, as an example of this latter type of governance, the article develops a deliberative two-track view of transnational legitimacy. It argues that deliberative democracy offers some fruitful theoretical tools in this context since it is equipped to address some of the qualitative problems of international decision-making as well as accommodate a plausible notion of political agency. Thirdly, from the point of view of this two-track view, the article examines the WTO and discusses its strengths and vulnerabilities, not only as a vehicle for trade liberalisation but also as an instrument of better global governance. 'The WTO as trade regulator, is at the heart of global governance [...] the international trading system and its benefits belong to us all it is an international public good and the WTO is the only instrument that can be used to deliver the global public good of non-discriminatory multilateral trade.'(1)

1 - 46 of 46
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf