Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- liberalism (5) (remove)
Institute
Right-wing populist parties often resort to a xenophobic rhetoric which both exploits and fuels existing illiberal anti-immigrant sentiments. Since populist anti-immigrant sentiments are at odds with fundamental liberal values and challenge the implementation of any liberal ethics of migration, this essay argues that states should adopt civic education policies to counter such sentiments and persuade citizens to develop liberal attitudes towards immigrants. Empirical evidence suggests that sentiments may be malleable, and there are already examples of local governments devising or supporting initiatives aimed at dispelling prejudices and promoting positive interactions. It might be objected that a government’s involvement in shaping sentiments and opinions conflicts with liberal democratic states’ commitment to individual autonomy and electoral fairness. However, I argue that civic education policies are not necessarily incompatible with such values and I provide five criteria to identify policies that liberal democratic governments may legitimately adopt to counteract anti-immigrant sentiments.
Problém tolerance se v posledních desetiletích v kontextu procesů globalizace a integrace národnostních menšin jeví jako jeden z klíčových problémů politické teorie. Autorem jedné z nejvlivnějších současných teorií tolerance je pak bezpochyby člen „čtvrté generace“ frankfurtské školy Rainer Forst. Článek předkládá kritickou recepci jeho teorie, lze ho ovšem zároveň chápat jako prostředek k získání obecné systematické a normativní orientace ve struktuře komplexní problematiky tolerance, která v současnosti významně rezonuje ve veřejném prostoru. Výklad za pomoci historických příkladů osvětluje Forstovo rozlišení pojmu a pojetí tolerance a následně se věnuje originálnímu normativnímu ospravedlnění tolerance, s důrazem na Forstem předložená řešení s tímto pojmem spojených paradoxů. Následuje kritické zhodnocení Forstovy argumentace, které poukazuje mimo jiné na obtíže vyplývající z Forstovy návaznosti na tradici liberalismu a konstruktivismu, a tím se dotýká problémů ležících v základech nejen Forstova myšlení, ale v základech těchto myšlenkových směrů vůbec.
Habermas defensa en aquest escrit l’existència d’un nexe intern entre l’Estat de dret i lademocràcia. Aquest nexe sorgeix del concepte modern de dret i del fet que el dret positiuja no pot legitimar-se a partir d’un dret d’ordre superior. Així doncs, el dret es legitima apartir de l’autonomia que tot ciutadà té garantida, de tal manera que l’autonomia pública ila privada es pressuposen mútuament. Aquest nexe es fa visible en la dialèctica entre la concepcióliberal del dret i el paradigma jurídic de l’Estat social, dialèctica que fa necessària unaautocomprensió procedimental de l’Estat democràtic de dret. Finalment aquest nou paradigmajurídic procedimental és exemplificat a partir de les polítiques feministes d’emancipació.
The rule of law is unique establishment that had taken place in historical context, as politico-legal edifice of capitalist society. To the extent that any legal system was established in historical context, its form and functioning are cannot be channelled by reflections or professional commitments of lawyers and legal philosophers. The rule of law emerged in certain conditions that we say “classical liberalism”, of power allocation where we diversify political power and legal power in the milieu of political society, enunciated as republic or commonwealth. Contrary to earlier forms of legal order, capitalism was unique that its super structure was articulated according to the pivotal role of legal machinery. There was an actual equilibrium between legal and political domains that they moderately matched with public and private dichotomy. After monopoly capitalism, social setting of liberalism was dramatically incurred some major modifications which were firstly dislocation of liberal individual, incited by monopoly capital and secondly, political achievement of the working classes obtained political equality, as drastic consequence of mass society. Hence, the rule of law altered as depoliticsation of democratised mass society, instead of modus vivendi of liberal individuals, which demarcated the rule of law according to welfare society or sozialrechtsstaat. The neo-liberal globalisation after 1980’s, republican model of political society faded away that it has been transformed by transnational capital where markets, hierarchies, regionalism and communal settings crosscut inner equilibrium between politics and law. Finally, the newborn articulation of power structure undermined necessary basement of the rule of law.