A Symbol doesn't explain, says Jung. In fact it is beyond the dichotomy of the binary logic, that wants the limiting and restrictive diktat of the tertium non datur to be perpetuated so as to be obliged to choose between two possibilities being anyway on the same nomological axis.

Kant argues that it is only as citizens of a properly constituted state that persons are able to respect one another’s innate right to freedom, for joint subjection to the authority of a state enables them to avoid what Kantians call “the problem of unilateralism”: when I interact with you in a state of nature according to my judgment of right in circumstances of disagreement between us, I implicitly claim that my judgment, and not yours, has authority over us (...) simply because it is mine. But this argument seems vulnerable to a powerful objection: my reason for acting on my judgment of right is not that it is mine but rather that it is, as I believe, correct, and so there is no sense in which I am claiming special authority for that judgment. This paper defends the Kantian problem of unilateralism against this objection and, in so doing, illuminates the feature of the Kantian conception of right that accounts for why, no matter how good and right-loving they might be, persons in a state of nature about right are unable coherently to pursue the aim of acting rightly. (shrink)

Rumfitt has given two arguments that in unilateralist verificationist theories of meaning, truth collapses into correct assertibility. In the present paper I give similar arguments that show that in unilateral falsificationist theories of meaning, falsehood collapses into correct deniability. According to bilateralism, meanings are determined by assertion and denial conditions, so the question arises whether it succumbs to similar arguments. I show that this is not the case. The final section considers the question whether a principle central to Rumfitt's first (...) argument, ‘It is assertible that if and only if it is assertible that it is assertible that ’, is one that bilateralists can reject, and concludes that they cannot. It follows that the logic of assertibility and deniability, according to a result by Williamson, is the little known modal logic K4 studied by Sobociński. The paper ends with a plaidoyer for bilateralists to adopt this logic. (shrink)

This paper surveys, not exhaustively but rather in summary, the development of legal philosophy surrounding the constitutional and international laws as corresponding that of world politics from the first world war through the formation of WTO governance. The world has changed gradually thus far while the westerners have long forge their hegemony through the recent US one. Before the dusk of new millennium, the political scientists entertained the version of US uni-pole in terms of world politics. Its version have confront (...) new development of world politics surrounding the rise of EU, China, and Japan. In this backdrop, they frequently mention bi-polar or multi-polar consequence of world politics. The politics are normally juxtaposed to the legal regime where the constitutional and international law reflect the fare of world politics. In other words, it subjugates in some form of legal regime whether the constitutional law surfaces strongly over international dimension for some superpower. In other dimension of power balance, the international law surges to legally govern the world politics. According to Rubenfeld, the first case represents a democratic constitutionalism while the later case, in legal terms, is related with the international constitutionalism. I would propose in thesis purpose to divide three stage of world politics. The first one is surge of the German empire to pursue world hegemony at the start of two world wars. In this period, the constitution has highlighted in ways of resolutionism, incorporatism or unilateralism. The second period runs from post world war to 190's while the pacifists or cold war dominate the world politics. In this era, UN works in the least as a symbol of world politics, and the international laws mater over the domestic laws. Hans Kelsen, a German legal positivist, led the post-war world politics in legal ways as demonstrated in his foundational influence over the formation of United Nations. In this flow, I suppose that the world politics turned on the pacificist road until the rise of US hegemony. As the bipolar system collapse upon the dismantlement of Soviet Union, US rise as a unitary world hegemony. In reflection, the unilateral constitutionalism enjoys an influential passion of that nation. As EU and China started to voice as political power in the international dimension, the international law and constitutionalism flourish while we cognize WTO as one of crucial products in such point of view. Hart, a European legal positivist is again contested to prove who governs the world in terms of legal theory adapted to the WTO's intrinsic and its function. (shrink)

Since the disintegration of the USSR Eurasia has gained a new geopolitical and strategic significance. Fifteen Countries emerged as a result of disintegration, among which only the Russian Federation was the successor state. The post-soviet era especially the era of the 1990s was a political and economic trauma for the Russian Federation and the post-soviet space. But Eurasianists were well aware of the American unilateralism and American ‘Grand Chessboard strategy” that was solely aimed at encircling Russian geography. With these (...) concerns, the Eurasianists advised the Russian political and military elites to initiate the Eurasian Union Project. This paper briefly sketches the Russian historical Eurasian dream, which deeply rooted in Russian imperial history, and discusses the importance of Eurasian philosophy for the political and economic stability of Russia-Eurasia. The paper also illustrates the challenges and opportunities for Eurasian integration and for the establishment of multipolar world order. Moreover, the paper also briefly outlines the geopolitical rationale behind the Eurasian project as a key objective of contemporary Russian foreign policy and geopolitics. (shrink)