The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy

McMahon, Christopher

doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00025.x

Cited by 46 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 10 My argument here about Young's use of non‐domination substantially mirrors that offered by McMahon (2005) about Pettit's theory. See also Pettit's (2006) response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Self-determination, Non-domination, and Federalism

Levy¹

2008

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes the theory offederalism as non-domination Iris Marion Young began to develop in her final years, a theory of self-government that tried to recognize interconnectedness. Levy abo poses an objection to that theory: non-domination cannot do the work Young needed of it, because it is a theory about the merits of decisions not about jurisdiction over them. The artick concludes with an attempt to give Young the h s t word.Beginning with Inclusion and Democracy,' and running through several articles including the last article she published before her death,l Iris Marion Young turned a part of her scholarly attention to the topic of federalism, one much neglected in normative political theory. She was particularly interested in federalism as it applied to multiethnic states, including settler states with indigenous minorities, and as potentially applicable to ethnonational conflicts across state boundaries, as in Israel and Palestine. She was concerned to build a theory of federalism around, as Philip Pettit (1997) has it, non-domination rather than non-interference. Drawing on her understandings of injustice and social connectedness, she argued that respect for each community's ability to govern itself would require more active redressing of power imbalances than mere mutual non-interference could allow.In this article, I attempt to synthesize, as Young did not have the chance to do, the theory of federalism she had been developing in disparate writings over the past several years, and suggest what was original and interesting about that theory. 1 also pose an objection to that theory-that non-domination is an idea in the wrong register to fit fully a theory of federalism's foundations, because it defers decisions about jurisdiction until after deciding the merits of particular

show abstract

“…10 10 My argument here about Young's use of non‐domination substantially mirrors that offered by McMahon (2005) about Pettit's theory. See also Pettit's (2006) response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Self-determination, Non-domination, and Federalism

Levy¹

2008

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arbitrariness is therefore of central importance for republican freedom, however the concept of arbitrariness has attracted criticism. Philip Pettit's (1997) definition of arbitrary power as power which does not 'track the interests' of those subject to the power has been criticised for importing a loaded conception of legitimate interests into the theory of freedom (McMahon 2005;Carter 2008). My definition of arbitrariness attempts to avoid these problems by distinguishing more clearly between the procedural question of what makes a power relationship unaccountable (that it is subject to inadequate checks) and the substantive principle of what we evaluate these checks against (the principle of tracked interests).…”

Section: Domination and Denizens-a Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Tyranny of the Enfranchised Majority? The Accountability of States to their Non-Citizen Population

Benton

2010

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate between legal constitutionalists and critics of constitutional rights and judicial review is an old and lively one. While the protection of minorities is a pivotal aspect of this debate, the protection of disenfranchised minorities has received little attention. Policy-focused discussion-of the merits of the Human Rights Act in Britain for example-often cites protection of non-citizen migrants, but the philosophical debate does not. Non-citizen residents or 'denizens' therefore provide an interesting test case for the theory of rights as trumps on ordinary representative politics. Are they the ultimate success story of the human rights framework? Or was Michael Walzer correct to describe government of denizens by citizens as a modern form of 'tyranny'? This paper argues that neither liberal rights theorists nor democratic republicans provide a coherent response to the existence of denizens. Liberal rights theorists overstate the extent to which a politically powerless status can secure individual rights, while democratic republicans idealise the political process and wrongly assume that all those affected by laws are eligible for political participation. The paper outlines an alternative model for assessing the accountability of states to their non-citizen population, informed by the republican ideal of non-domination. It identifies gaps in state accountability to denizens-such as where there is inadequate diplomatic protection-and argues that these gaps are particularly troubling if their exit costs of leaving the state are high.

show abstract

“…13 Unlike Christman and Larmore, McMahon argues that the main problem with Pettit's account is not the fact that it relies on normative notions. It is that the account is highly indeterminate and therefore not useful as a guide to policy.…”

Section: Criticisms: Normativity and Indeterminacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Freedom as Non-Domination, Normativity, and Indeterminacy

Costa

2007

J Value Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy

Cited by 46 publications

References 4 publications

Self-determination, Non-domination, and Federalism

Self-determination, Non-domination, and Federalism

The Tyranny of the Enfranchised Majority? The Accountability of States to their Non-Citizen Population

Freedom as Non-Domination, Normativity, and Indeterminacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About