Suchergebnisse

Despite his significant influence across the humanities, Cavell's work has attracted little attention from political theorists. This book addresses that gap by explicating the political dimensions of his thought and placing it in conversation with contemporary debates within the discipline, focusing on the challenge of post-truth politics.

Cover; Title; Copyright; Contents; Acknowledgments; Introduction; Part I; 1 A picture holds us captive; Introduction; The normative critique of sovereignty; Arendt; Foucault; Agamben; Hardt and Negri; The limitations of the normative critique of sovereignty; The architectonic critique of sovereignty; The world state; Neo-feudalism; State-centric; The persistence of sovereignty; Conclusion; 2 Sovereignty, judgment, and epistemic skepticism; Skepticism; Epistemological skepticism in Hobbes and Spinoza; Spinoza; Hobbes; Skepticism and sovereignty; 3 Sovereignty, language, and ethical skepticism.

Duncan Bell's Empire, Race and Global Justice is an edited volume that makes an important intervention in philosophical debates about global justice. Its contributors argue that global justice scholarship has paid insufficient attention to the role of imperialism and racism in generating global hierarchies. This review considers the contributions of this volume from three perspectives: as a critique of the global justice literature, as a guide for what methods global justice scholars should use and as a reconsideration of what texts should be incorporated into the global justice canon. Empire is an important book for anyone who researches and teaches in the area of global justice because it demonstrates both why a different approach to this topic is necessary and how a different approach is possible.

AbstractGiven the prevalence of riots throughout human history, the lack of normative theorizing about them compared to other forms of political violence is striking. The author hypothesizes that this is due to riots' extra-institutionality. Riots areextra-publicbecause they involve the participation of crowds, rather than institutionalized groups such as parties or social movements. They areextra-statebecause they violate the state's monopoly on violence. Riots areextra-legalbecause they constitute a form of unlawful assembly. They are alsoextra-parliamentarybecause they operate outside the normal legislative process. This article considers justifiable reasons to resist each of these foundational institutions, and proposes provisional criteria for a justifiable riot. The author concludes by urging political theorists to further examine the normative dimension of riots.

Given the prevalence of riots throughout human history, the lack of normative theorizing about riots when compared to other forms of political violence is striking. I hypothesize this is due to the riot's extra-institutionality. Riots are extra-public because crowds riot rather than institutionalized groups such as parties or social movements. Riots are extra-state because they violate the state's monopoly on violence. Riots are extra-legal because they are a form of unlawful assembly. Riots are extra-Parliamentary because they operate outside of the normal legislative process. By considering the justifiable reasons for resisting each of these foundational institutions I propose some provisional criteria for a justifiable riot and argue that political theorists should pay attention to the normative dimension of riots.

AbstractRecently, historians of the international system have called into question the significance of the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 as the moment when the international system formed. One of their primary arguments is that the non-intervention norm typically associated with Westphalian notions of sovereignty developed much later. This paper will examine the early 17th-century debates over the right of the Pope to depose monarchs in the defense of spiritual matters. I read Part III and Part IV of Hobbes'Leviathanin its intellectual context to see how his theory of sovereignty was partially developed to support a theory of non-intervention. This reading leads to two important contributions to current political science debates. First, it refutes the growing consensus that non-intervention developed as an aspect of sovereignty only in the late 18th and early 19th century. Second, the paper addresses current attempts to assert a right of humanitarian intervention. By exploring similarities between these recent debates and those between Bellarmine and Hobbes in the 17th century, I offer a fresh perspective on what is at stake in current claims to international community.