Suchergebnisse

Worldly Politics and Divine Institutions explores four instances of democratic governments becoming intertwined with religious matters: when the U.K. Supreme Court forced a government-funded faith school (the British JFS School) to change its admission policies; when The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Catholic Church could dismiss religion teachers in Spanish public schools; when the Italian government upheld mandatory crucifixes in all public school classrooms; and the Bladensburg World War I Memorial (the Peace Cross) case in Maryland, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross's public placement did not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Analytical Table of Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 Laying the Groundwork -- Chapter 2 Non-identity and Redressing Historical Injustices -- Chapter 3 Against Redress (1): The Individualistic Perspective -- Chapter 4 Against Redress (2): Thinking about Collectivities, States, and Nations -- Chapter 5 Intergenerational Redress and Forward-looking Considerations, and the Remaining Case for Redressing Past Wrongs -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Index

Developments in contemporary analytic political theory have called for political theory to situate itself near political science, to pay attention to political institutions, to follow the research output of the social sciences, and to present sensitivity to method. This empirical and methodological turn has brought about a debate regarding the form and desirability of such empirically grounded political theory. We aim, first, to clarify what the empirical turn in political theory implies for research in political theory. We shall situate such empirically grounded political theory in contemporary analytic political theory, in contemporary analytic political theory's descriptive and prescriptive steps, and also examine how this turn complements contemporary analytic political theory's evaluative step. Second, to suggest a defense of this empirical development, as if properly understood, it would assist empirically grounded contemporary analytic political theory to achieve its own stated goals. Third, to provide a template for a research design in empirical contemporary analytic political theory.

Jonathan Floyd's work explores the ways in which political theory can use empirical data to answer a fundamental question: what is the best kind of a contemporary regime? The goals of the current article are to understand Floyd's important argument, to clarify the argument's main attributes, and to suggest that the argument cannot rely solely on empirical data: even if all the conditions that are necessary for Floyd's framework present themselves, his approach still requires substantial theoretical, normative, or philosophical foundations. I argue that it is not possible to rely on empirical data to circumvent political philosophising; the justification for such reliance itself requires substantial philosophical arguments. Regardless, Floyd's project is a leading example of the benefits of bringing political theory and political science closer to each other.

Contemporary political theory demonstrates a turn towards data-sensitive research. Waldron, Shapiro, Carens, Blau and Floyd emphasise the importance of grounding political theory in empirical data. Political scientists developed methods aimed at improving the ways in which political institutions are studied. What can empirical political theory borrow from this literature, that would advance its aim to precisely evaluate political institutions? It is suggested to naturalise within political theory political-science methods. We point to three methods: the usage of case studies, avoiding sampling by the dependent variable and process tracing. In order to demonstrate their relevance, we re-read three studies in contemporary political theory (by Walzer, Spinner-Halev and Wenar), in light of the noted methods. If empirical political theory aims to fulfil its own stated goals and evaluate the desirability of political institutions according to reliable data regarding their functionality, it would greatly benefit from naturalising the methods of political science.

Abstractin 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its seminal decision in theLautsi vs. Italycase, arguing that the requirement in Italian law that all public schools will display crucifixes in each classroom does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision gave rise to a storm of reactions. The goal of this article is to argue, that the ECHR used "majoritarianism" in an under-theorized way and/or unattractive way, and that this usage of the concept can be identified in other cases as well (see the highly controversialDahlab vs. Swiss, ECHR). Demonstrating the procedural, monopoly based and circularity problems within the ECHR decision point to potential ways to criticize the court decision, without taking sides in the heated and highly divisive debate between so called "neutrality supporters" and (roughly) "endorsed church — majoritarian supporters," sides of the debate surrounding "Lautsi."

Abstract.This article aims to describe a forward-looking approach to the problem of property rights in transitional justice contexts. Undemocratic regimes violate property rights in various ways, from simple theft to violations of opportunities to appropriate. Therefore, post-transition situations entail an obligation to correct such injustices. However, returning to the status quo ante is complex, costly and requires information that is often not available. An alternative is the suggested FCR: forward looking, commensurable and redistributive. Such an approach emphasizes the creation of a baseline of ownership and welfare rather than an attempt to return to the status quo ante.Résumé.Cet article tente de décrire un argument tourné vers l'avenir au sujet du problème des droits de propriété en contexte de justice transitionnelle. Les régimes non démocratiques violent les droits de propriété de multiple façons, de la simple usurpation à la violation des opportunités d'appropriation. Par conséquent, les situations post transitionnelles impliquent une obligation de corriger de telles injustices. Cependant, le retour au status quo ante s'avère complexe, coûteux et requiert de l'information qui, souvent, n'est plus disponible. Une alternative est l'argument suggéré FCR : prospectif, commensurable et redistributif. Une telle approche met l'emphase sur la création des conditions de base du droit à la propriété et du bien-être, plutôt que sur la tentative de restituer le status quo antérieur.