| 1. |
- Andersson, Emil, 1982-
(författare)
-
Reinterpreting Liberal Legitimacy
- 2019
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis is an inquiry into the Liberal Principle of Legitimacy, formulated by John Rawls in his later writings. According to this principle, the exercise of political power is legitimate only if it is justifiable to all citizens. This view can be interpreted in different ways, and I argue that the presently most popular way of doing so faces serious problems. The aim is to identify and defend a more plausible version of the principle, which overcomes these problems, and yet preserves the most essential and appealing features of the approach. Among the most central issues for how to interpret the principle are how to understand the notion of justifiability to a person, and who should be included in the group of persons referred to as "all citizens". On the currently received view, only justifiability to those who count as "reasonable" matter, and justifiability to these persons is understood in non-moral terms, as being determined by what is accessible to them, given the beliefs that they happen to hold. I argue that we have good reasons to reject both of these suggestions. We should instead spell out justifiability to a person in terms of what could be reasonably accepted in a moral sense, which allows us to retain the appealing idea that legitimacy is dependent on justifiability to all citizens over whom political power is exercised. I further suggest that we can use the original position – Rawls’s version of the social contract – to determine what is justifiable to all in this sense. I defend this suggestion against the expected objection that it will not be able to take reasonable pluralism – the assumption of deep disagreement between citizens – into account, by explaining why we should sharply distinguish this principle of political legitimacy from the theory of Political Liberalism. This distinction also contributes to my response to the objection, raised against this principle, that it is self-defeating. That my suggested interpretation allows us to convincingly respond to this line of criticism is yet another reason as to why it is preferable to the standard view.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Carlsson, Anni, 1988-
(författare)
-
Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression in the Age of Social Media : A Comparative Study
- 2024
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Social media platforms are increasingly important arenas for communication in today’s society. These platforms can both enable and restrict their users’ exercise of free speech. The right to freedom of expression has traditionally protected individuals against state interference. However, the most popular social media platforms are owned by private companies, which creates new challenges for the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. This study examines how constitutional free speech rights have been adapted and should be adapted to the new communicative landscape dominated by social media.A comparative study of the adaption of constitutional free speech guarantees to social media in the US, Sweden and Germany is carried out. Relevant European law (European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law) is also included in the comparison. Four dimensions of the exercise of free speech on social media are compared. Firstly, social media users' and platforms' free speech rights are studied. Secondly, it is analysed whether constitutional free speech rights can be applied to relationships between private social media platforms and their users (horizontal effect). Thirdly, the state’s potential positive obligations to protect users' freedom of expression against social media companies are examined. Finally, laws regulating the effects of social media platforms on free speech exercise are addressed, including the Digital Services Act adopted by the European Union.Through the comparative analysis, different constitutional law mechanisms that allow freedom of expression to impact relationships between private social media platforms and their users are identified. Constitutional free speech guarantees can affect the activities of social media platforms through the horizontal effect of constitutional rights or the state’s positive obligations. Even without horizontal effect and positive obligations, the constitutional free speech law may allow the state to regulate platforms’ power over free speech through ordinary laws. It is argued that regardless of which of these constitutional law mechanisms is used, it is necessary to balance competing free speech interests of speakers, audience, platforms and society against each other. Guidelines for weighing the various free speech interests against each other are presented in the last chapter of the dissertation. It is suggested, among other things, that democracy should be chosen as the guiding free speech value for such a balancing exercise.
|
|
| 4. |
- Cuono, Massimo, et al.
(författare)
-
Verso una teoria del diritto per l’età delle migrazioni di massa : Una tipologia del potere arbitrario
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Rivista di Filosofia del Diritto - Journal of Legal Philosophy. - Milano : Societa Editrice Il Mulino. - 2280-482X. ; 1, s. 11-32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this paper, a typology of forms of arbitrariness, as related to political power, is sketched out and applied specifically to the analysis of citizenship policies and border-control techniques. The paper offers a basic typology of forms of arbitrariness making possible a hopefully clarifying differentiation among forms of abuse: (a) illegal practices, (b) irrational policies, and (c) discriminatory statuses.
|
|
| 5. |
-
EU Citizenship: Twenty Years On : Special Issue German Law Journal
- 2014
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Maastricht Treaty (the “Treaty”) first introduced the status of EU citizenship. The twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty, marked in 2013, was declared the European Year of the Citizen. Union citizenship has been understood as the world’s first post-national citizenship, although it is still complementary to national citizenships. EU citizens enjoy rights that have been expanded, modified, and reinterpreted in light of the EU integration process. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been a driving force in this process. This twentieth anniversary has provided the occasio for this special issue. Indeed, much has happened over the last two decades. The Maastricht Treaty entered into force on the heels of German reunification, and afterwards, a series of EU treaties followed: The Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights, the aborted constitutionalization process and the Rome Treaty in 2004, and the Treaty of Lisbon. The Euro took over former national currencies in 2002; the enlargement process led to today’s twenty-eight Member States. But the ratio of this special issue is based on other events as linked to the 2008 financial crisis, bailouts, the fiscal compact, and similar measures. In a nutshell, the timeliness of this volume is linked to the current financial disarray. Since prognosis presupposes diagnosis, no further words are necessary as to the importance of this task. It is (almost) self-evident that before taking action and preparing for the future, one needs to address the very first question: Nosce te ipsum...
|
|
| 6. |
- Gkouvas, Triantafyllos, et al.
(författare)
-
Trust in Law
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy. - : Routledge. - 9781138687462
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Some basic empirical acquaintance with the operations of legal systems is sufficient to render visible the presence of issues of trust across a continuum flanked by legal doctrine on one side and legal practice on the other side. The spectrum of legal events where appeals to the concept of trust occupy center stage is so wide that it becomes rather difficult to track a minimal common ground in the way in which legal theorists choose to describe trust as a topic of legal regulation, scrutiny or interest. In response to this constraint we shall assume that in its core trust invites the adoption of a “participant” stance from which a particular combination of reactive attitudes is deemed an appropriate response towards those we regard as responsible agents. This responsibility-based conception of trust dovetails with a widely accepted understanding of the addressees of legal requirements as practically accountable for their satisfaction. The entry will be divided in four subsequent sections each outlining the most lucid elaborations of the legal relevance of trust by theories of law which, for a host of different reasons, associate, more or less explicitly, the participant perspective on trust with either one of the following four basic concepts of law: sociological, doctrinal, taxonomic and aspirational.
|
|
| 7. |
- Goldoni, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Between Democracy and Nationality : Citizenship Policies in the Lisbon Ruling
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Public Law. - 1354-3725 .- 1875-8207. ; 18:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When the German constitutional court expressed itself in the Lisbon ruling, on the 30th of June 2009, the famous German newspaper Der Bild published the corrosive headline “the end of federalism”. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the arguments of the Court concerning (1) the nature of the EU as a confederation (Staatenverbund), (2) the illegitimacy of further development towards a federal state (Staatsverband) and (3) the determination of the EU’s ‘core competences’, in order to shed light on why, within the EU, the relationship between federalism and democracy appears to be so tense. The point is that the claim that the EU cannot legitimately become a federation without calling for the constituent power of the German people (§228) is grounded in a circular logic that ultimately depends on the definition of citizenry adopted. Two connected issues will thus be deepened. On one hand, we look at the problem of jurisdictional competence attribution, the ‘ultra vires’ and ‘domaine réservé’ doctrines. In particular, the adoption of criteria for determining the state’s core competences on the basis of the principle of essentiality (Wesentlichkeitstheorie) will be assessed. On the other hand, the focus is on the theory of democracy that the German constitutional court embraces, according to which ‘the democratic legitimacy derives from the interconnection between the action of European governmental entities and the parliaments of the Member states’.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
-
Justice of Others : Arbitrary Law-making in Contemporary Migration Policy (Etikk i praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, Vol. 14, Issue 2)
- 2020
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- The special issue covers both fronts by presenting a conceptual analysis of arbitrary law-making that sets out to typify its various meanings, along an empirical account of its actual functioning in legal and political practice. As arbitrariness becomes a pressing concern for lawyers, politicians and scholars attempting to grasp the discretionary powers of judicial and administrative authorities vis-a-vis legal subjects, its social impact as well as its political consequences must be taken into consideration in order to fully comprehend how central arbitrariness has become for a philosophical and a sociological account of law-making. Migration policy is precisely where arbitrariness vividly shows its face, and where its various forms unleash their most revealing implications. It is in this field that we must dig further if we want to know how this hitherto peripheral and surrogated dimension of legal decision-making stretches the leeway of legal officials to the very margin of legality, disclosing the social tension and the power struggle between their agency and the structures that condition and enable it.
|
|
