This essay presents a new way of conceptualizing the problem of political obligation. On the traditional ‘normativist’ framing of the issue, the primary task for theory is to secure the content and justification of political obligations, providing practically applicable moral knowledge. This paper develops an alternative, ‘pragmatist’ framing of the issue, by rehabilitating a frequently misunderstood essay by Hanna Pitkin and by recasting her argument in terms of the ‘pragmatic turn’ in recent philosophy, as articulated by Robert Brandom. From this (...) perspective, the content and justification of political obligations cannot be determined in a way that is in principle separable from their application. This casts ‘political obligation’ not as a problem to be philosophically resolved, but as a political predicament that calls for a kind of practical engagement. The merit of this perspective is to draw our attention toward the conditions under which the problem appears as a lived predicament. (shrink)

Political legitimacy is a virtue of political institutions and of the decisions—about laws, policies, and candidates for political office—made within them. This entry will survey the main answers that have been given to the following questions. First, how should legitimacy be defined? Is it primarily a descriptive or a normative concept? If legitimacy is understood normatively, what does it entail? Some associate legitimacy with the justification of coercive power and with the creation of political authority. Others associate it with the (...) justification, or at least the sanctioning, of existing political authority. Authority stands for a right to rule—a right to issue commands and, possibly, to enforce these commands using coercive power. An additional question is whether legitimate political authority is understood to entail political obligations or not. Most people probably think it does. But some think that the moral obligation to obey political authority can be separated from an account of legitimate authority, or at least that such obligations arise only if further conditions hold. (shrink)

The suite of secretive national security programs initiated in the US since 9/11 has created debate not only about the merits of targeted killing, torture, secret detention, cyberwar, global signals intercepts, and data-mining, but about the very secrecy in which these programs were conceived, debated by government officials, and implemented. Law must be revealed to those who are expected to comply with its demands. Law is a mere pretext for coercion if the laws permitting the government to coerce people for (...) non-compliance are concealed. The purpose of this essay is to determine whether inhabitants of a liberal state—a type of state tracing the legitimacy of its coercive actions to the consent of the governed—also need to know the internal protocols and legal findings of the government agencies ostensibly serving them. To put this question another way, what, if anything, may government agencies in liberal states keep secret? (shrink)

What obligations are there on voters? This paper argues that voters should make their electoral decision competently, and does so by developing on a recent proposal for democratic legitimacy. It then explores three problems arising from this ‘competency obligation’. First, how should voters be competent? I propose three conditions required for voter competence. Second, how competent should voters be? I argue that the competency required tracks the significance of the consequences of the vote. Third, if the electorate are unlikely to (...) deliver a competent decision, should suffrage be restricted to the competent alone? I defend unrestricted suffrage on the grounds that restricting suffrage cannot guarantee a competently made electoral decision. Instead, obligations on voters should be minimised by political parties satisfying their obligations to be politically sound; if they are sound, then the obligation to be competent can be easily satisfied by voters. (shrink)

This article intervenes in a critical debate about the use of consent to distinguish sex from rape. Drawing from critical contract theories, it argues that sexual consent is a cruel optimism that often operates to facilitate, rather than alleviate, sexual violence. Sexual consent as a cruel optimism promises to simplify rape allegations in the popular cultural imagination, confounds the distinction between victims and agents of sexual violence, and establishes certainty for potential victimizers who rely on it to convince themselves and (...) others that their partners implicitly or explicitly agreed to sex. In each of these cases, the power of consent rests in its tendency to obscure sexual violence in a set of questions around victimhood and agency, rather than to clarify whether or when it has occurred. Following in the critical contract tradition, this article argues that the optimistic attachment to the clarifying power of consent helps to explain the persistent commitment to better sexual consent as a ‘solution’ to the problems of rape and sexual violence, and that this ‘solution’ is insufficient to the task. (shrink)

Faced with a choice between escaping without consequences and submitting to a democratic decision, Socrates chooses the latter. So immense is Socrates’ duty to obey law, we are led to believe, that even the threat of death is insufficient to abrogate it. Crito proposes several arguments purporting to ground Socrates’ strong duty to obey, with the appeal to the Athenian system’s democratic credentials carrying most of the normative weight. A careful reading of the dialogue, in conjunction with the ‘Apology’, reveals, (...) however, a more complex picture. If Crito sets the conditions that render a regime legitimate, and therefore warranting of obedience, the Apology reveals a legal system’s shortcomings that justify disobedience. This article substantiates this position by delineating circumstances that can justify resistance. Contemporary forms of political resistance can also rely on similar conditions. Plato’s texts anticipate the current democratic turn of civil disobedience. (shrink)

In recent developments in political and legal philosophy, there is a tendency to endorse minimalist lists of human rights which do not include a right to political participation. Against such tendencies, I shall argue that the right to political participation, understood as distinct from a right to democracy, should have a place even on minimalist lists. In addition, I shall defend the need to extend the right to political participation to include participation not just in national, but also in international (...) and global governance processes. The argument will be based on a cosmopolitan conception of political legitimacy and on a political conception of human rights that is normatively anchored in legitimacy. The central claim of my paper is that a right to political participation is necessary – but not sufficient – for political legitimacy in the global realm. (shrink)

Two Treatises of Government (TT) de John Locke (1632-1704) propone dos pactos, uno que funda el Estado y otro que funda el gobierno. La presencia de estos dos pactos supone profundas diferencias con el contractualismo hobbesiano y abre la puerta a la teoría de la resistencia lockeana. En este artículo se analizan con cierto detalle las características de ambos pactos a la luz no solo de TT sino también de otros textos de Locke a fin de precisar la especificidad y (...) originalidad de su propuesta política. Ello supondrá discutir con la lectura de intérpretes clásicos como John Dunn y John Simmons, así como otros más contemporáneos como Lee Ward y Robert Faulkner. (shrink)

For any teacher, student or practitioner of the architecture and the law of states, the passing of John Rawls, over a year later, is doubtless still providing an unusual moment in modern liberal de...

Este artículo analiza el problema de cómo lidiar con situaciones en las que nuestras creencias morales van en contravía de las demandas de un gobierno que cuenta con el decidido apoyo de la mayoría de los miembros de la comunidad política a la cual uno pertenece. Siguiendo las tesis que plantea Jaspers en el Problema de la culpa, se intenta mostrar que si se interpreta el concepto de culpa política propuesto por Jaspers en la línea del filósofo liberal John Locke, (...) se puede arrojar una nueva luz sobre lo que la responsabilidad política significa. Esto también nos permitirá mostrar que las llamadas obligaciones políticas de los ciudadanos se extienden más allá de los requerimientos institucionales, asunto que ha sido el foco de recientes discusiones entre aquellos estudiosos que tratan la cuestión de la legitimidad política desde la perspectiva del contractualismo moderno. Tal extensión consiste básicamente en que los ciudadanos tienen obligaciones políticas relacionadas con la cultura política que constituyen su identidad política. (shrink)

Normative questions concerning political authority and political obligation are widely seen as central questions of political philosophy. Current global transformations require an innovative response from normative political thinking about these two topics. In light of a concrete example of the supranational forms of authority and obligation that have been and are emerging beyond the national state and beyond the traditional domains of international law, I lay out what has become the standard approach to authority and obligation and indicate why this (...) approach is inadequate in contemporary circumstances. I sketch an alternative approach and suggest how the most promising exemplar of this kind, Habermas’ discourse theory of law and politics, can better deal with the example. Having thus made plausible the advantages of the discourse theory of the alternative approach, I end with an ‘internal’ critique of Habermas’ own recent writings on the global political order. (shrink)

Since its appearance in 1971, John Rawls’ A Theory of justice has attracted much critical attention. Most of this attention has inevitably centred on the two principles of justice for institutions and on their derivation from the original position. This paper will examine a part of the system which has not yet received such close scrutiny — Rawls’ theory of political obligation in general and civil disobedience in particular. My main aim is to understand this theory, since there are crucial (...) respects in which it is undeveloped. But I shall also along the way comment on its possibilities; these comments will for the most part take the form of comparisons with its utilitarian rival.In what follows I shall not confine myself to the material in Rawls’ book, but rather use the appearance of the book as an opportunity to review the development of the theory of political obligation since “Justice as Fairness”. When one surveys the period bounded by that initial paper and by the book, certain patterns form. (shrink)

La relación entre patrimonio y derechos políticos en la obra de John Locke ha sido ampliamente discutida. Por un lado, se encuentran posiciones como las de Kendall y Tully que atribuyen un carácter democrático a la concepción lockeana sobre la sociedad civil. Por otro, interpretaciones como las de Ashcraft que le asignan un sesgo revolucionario e igualitario, próximo a la concepción de los Levellers. Sin embargo, a la luz de una serie de documentos, es posible discutir estas interpretaciones, como ya (...) lo han hecho diversos intérpretes parcialmente. Se mostrará aquí que Locke supone que la discusión parlamentaria compete a quienes, representando a los diferentes sectores productivos, discuten la promoción de sus actividades y que los trabajadores, al no disponer de la formación necesaria para la discusión sobre los asuntos públicos, no son considerados para participar del ejercicio parlamentario sino sólo de una resistencia excepcional. (shrink)

This paper aims to reconstruct the concept of “people” in the political theory of John Locke considering his theory of consent. First, we analyze the notion of “political resistance” that provides important elements to characterize the Lockean people. We then complement that perspective with the hypothesis that the distinction between express and tacit consent is key to determine who can be part of the people, as we try to demonstrate that the analysis of this distinction solely focused on the duty (...) to obey the law turns out to be insufficient. (shrink)

What constraints should be imposed on individual liberty for the sake of protecting our collective security? A helpful approach to answering this question is offered by a theory that grounds political obligation and authority in a moral requirement of fair contribution to mutually beneficial cooperative schemes. This approach encourages us to split the opening question into two—a question of correctness and a question of legitimacy—and generates a detailed set of answers to both subsidiary questions, with a nuanced and plausible set (...) of implications. The plausibility of its treatment of the issues surrounding liberty and security, I argue, helps to confer credibility on the fairness-based theory that carries these implications. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that gendered abuse is only defined as such within certain institutional configurations and norms (and the language in which the norms are expressed). Consequently, the absence or deficiency of a particular structure for identifying or naming abuse _is_ itself a kind of abuse, both deeply personal in its effects, but institutional in its nature. I call this phenomenon “discursive cornering.” To build this argument, I draw from work on the concept of consent by two feminist (...) political thinkers: nonfiction writer Melissa Febos and television creator Michaela Coel. I examine Febos’ essay “Thank You for Taking Care of Yourself” on the politics of what she terms “empty consent,” a descriptor she uses to detail how patriarchal structures can pressure women into reluctantly agreeing to their own oppression. I analyze Coel’s critically acclaimed HBO series “I May Destroy You” to show that what constitutes rape, sexual assault, and abuse is always defined within particular legal structures, which are themselves embedded in diverse political climates. I show that understandings of abuse must acknowledge the structures that define abuse, and we must remember that those structures can also themselves be abusive. Otherwise, we are unable to understand how survivors’ agency works without implicitly minimizing harm. (shrink)

This piece argues that free migration was a central if implicit part of the liberal social contract and that America’s founders were both aware of this and exploited it to legitimate their new state. The piece begins by describing this uniquely American contribution to liberal political thought. It then juxtaposes this contribution against the nature of our own international order, to show just how foreign the American Century has become. The piece closes with a short depiction of what an American (...) Century would look like today—were it true to this early ideal—and comments on its feasibility. (shrink)