Follow Public Reason
Join Public Reason
- Academia (54)
- Articles (23)
- Awards (23)
- Blogosphere (20)
- Books (105)
- Calls for Papers (232)
- Conferences (246)
- Discussion (45)
- Fellowships (46)
- Grad Conferences (50)
- Housekeeping (11)
- Jobs (29)
- Journals (42)
- Notices (725)
- Podcast (18)
- Politics (26)
- Posts (211)
- Problems (28)
- Public Philosophy (13)
- Radio (1)
- Reading Group (122)
- Seminars (11)
- Symposia (26)
- Teaching (9)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Video (2)
- Working Papers (17)
Category Archives: Notices
Symposium: Cosmopolitan Law and the Courts in Transnational Legal Theory 2016 (Taylor&Francis, Routledge)
Excerpt from the Introduction by C.Corradetti
The thesis of a “cosmopolitan turn” of a state’s constitutionalism has quite extensively influenced the debate over the contemporary transformation of international law. A Copernican revolution of sorts, it has consisted not only of a phenomenological shift, but also of the creation of a new paradigm for the definition of legitimate domestic orders. The cosmopolitan turn has also run parallel to the constitutionalization of international law. Here, constitutionalization is neither simply a process of legalization nor, obviously, a constitution as such. This is due to the fact that constitutionalization implies a number of processes which international law undergoes together with a multiplicity of purposes that are served therewith. It indicates the transformation of bilateral or multilateral agreements into higher order principles of wider scope. In order for this transformation to be possible, a shift in reasoning should precede, one moving away from an instrumental, technocratic form into a value-based approach of legal reasoning. This value inclusion within legal thinking is what the term “constitutionalism” aims to capture. As a mode of reasoning — as a “mindset” — constitutionalism brings about the conditions of a rule of law conceived around the standard of equality, human dignity, or freedom. Constitutionalism indicates also a process of self-reflexivity. It provides a meta-framework from which to evaluate the legitimacy of its own constitutions, their finality and role within transnational law […].
The Department of Government (FAS) at Harvard University will host its 10th annual conference for graduate students in political theory and political philosophy on October 21–22, 2016. Papers on any theme or topic within political theory — from the history of political thought to contemporary normative theory — will be considered. Between six and eight papers will be accepted.
Submissions are due via email in PDF form by August 1, 2016. Papers will be refereed by current Harvard graduate students, and acceptance notices will be sent by early September. Please limit each submission to 7,500 words (about 20 double-spaced pages). Essays longer than 10,000 words will not be considered. Each submission should include two PDF files: one with the paper formatted for blind review (free of personal and institutional information), and the other including a cover page with the title of the paper, an abstract (250 words max.), and your name, email address, and institutional affiliation.
CfP Extended deadline – From Bureaucracy to Governmentality: Subjectification and Lived Experience MANCEPT (Sept 7-9)
MANCEPT workshop 2016 (September 7-9)
From Bureaucracy to Governmentality: Subjectification and Lived Experience
Convenors: Guido Barbi and Liesbeth Schoonheim
The physiognomy of the modern mass state has been subject to thorough analyses ranging from Max Weber’s assessment of bureaucracy as legal rule, Foucault’s thesis on governmentality as replacement of sovereignty, to Niklas Luhmann’s system-theoretical account. However, despite their insights into the logic of the contemporary state, it often remains unclear how to incorporate into their accounts the lived experiences of individuals vis-à-vis the state. The attention for subjectifying practices inherent to the modern state often comes at the expense of conceptualizing the individual’s potential for agency. Nonetheless, political subjects are increasingly subjected to these practices, which prevail not only in spheres usually associated with the state (e.g., education, health care), but are also reproduced by transnational organizations and extended to civil society (e.g., NGOs, social media). Given this condition, the question how political agency can assert itself vis-à-vis subjectifying practices becomes ever more urgent.
Applications are invited for the Summer School on Methods and Approaches in Normative Political Theory/Philosophy, sponsored by the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), to be held from July 4-15 2016, at the University of Limerick, Ireland.
The summer school is co-organised by the ECPR Standing Group in Political Theory, the ECPR Standing Group in Kantian Political Thought, and the Social Justice and Public Ethics Research Cluster at the University of Limerick. It is primarily aimed at graduate students and postdoctoral researchers working in the fields of moral and political philosophy/theory and it gives them a unique opportunity to exchange research and teaching ideas with colleagues from other universities and research institutes.
Res Publica, Volume 22, Number 2, is now available online.
In this issue:
Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason
Karin Jønch-Clausen & Klemens Kappel
Convergence Justifications Within Political Liberalism: A Defence
Patriotic Conscientious Objection to Military Service
Aggressive Hook Ups: Modeling Aggressive Casual Sex on BDSM for Moral Permissibility
‘IP’ Moral Rights Breaches are Deception Offences, Not Property Offences: Correcting a Category Error
Perspectives on the Fairness of Lotteries
The Social Benefits of Protecting Hate Speech and Exposing Sources of Prejudice
In this article I propose to make two arguments and express one main claim. One argument argues that if you are a Kantian about all-in ethical obligation, you should choose not to wear religious clothing in public. I call this the Kantian Argument. (Purists might wish me to call this the Kantianish Argument.) The other argument argues that I have a right to make the first argument. I call this the Uniform Argument. The main claim is this: even if you do not accept these arguments, it is desirable for people who have strong religious convictions, and who express those convictions in their dress, to undertake symbolic ways to show respect for the secular state. I call this the Respect Claim.