International Political Theory

Global Public Reason In the public reason tradition, political institutions must be justifiable to all persons over whom they have authority. International institutions must also meet this high standard of justifiability: their rules can be justified only if such rules can be endorsed by all individuals or peoples to whom they apply. But how can such endorsement take place when, given the variety of histories and cultures across the globe, we witness vast disagreements about moral, religious, and political ideals? This question was made more tractable in the domestic realm by assuming an overlapping consensus on widely shared political values such as freedom and equality, in other words by assuming a shared liberal democratic political culture. But such an assumption is ill suited as a starting point for the justification of global political institutions. Thus, the question arises: what are the assumptions and arguments which global public reason theorists can advance in order to make progress on the question of how to justify the legitimacy or authority of international institutions to diverse peoples and persons? We invite submission that deal with this question from a variety of perspectives which have been the hallmark of the international political theory section in previous years: analytical and critical perspectives, comparative political theory, empirically informed normative studies, and legal theory broadly understood. Papers and panel submissions can engage the emerging global public reason debate along two dimensions. The first one refers to the procedural standards and decisions rules which international institutions must adopt in order to be acceptable. For example, are some form of supermajoritarian decision-making preferable to either consensus-based or simple majoritarian voting? And how should political representation be organized at the global level to satisfy demands for accountability, fairness, and the inclusion of a board range of interests of the individuals affected? The second dimension refers to the substantive rules which could be justified at the international level given persistent disagreement among the world’s individuals and peoples. What list of human rights, rights and duties for states, or principles of global distributive justice, migration, and environmental protection would meet the standards of global public reason properly conceived? These two dimensions are not meant to be exhaustive, so any other topics related to the global public reason debate, including critical assessments of the public reason framework from feminist, sociological, or postcolonial perspectives, are welcome.