King's College London complete notes of final year Jurisprudence module
12 views 0 purchase
Course
Law
Institution
Kings College London (KCL)
Complete notes of Jurisprudence and Legal Theory module (final year module of 3-year LLB) at King's College London. Lecturer name: John Tasioulas. Consists of two documents listing prescribed reading, lecture notes, tutorial questions and notes for following topics:
- Anarchy or Obligation
- La...
Notes Jurisprudence and Legal Theory
Part B
by Inji Kim
2019/2020
, Ober’s Demopolis (1)
A. Reading
● Demopolis Chapters 1-2
B. Seminar Notes
ULTIMATE QUESTION
● Is O successful in defending BD?
INTRODUCTION
● D is being taken for granted - package with L
● claim: D before L has a distinct value that is independent from L
○ Rawls: thinking about political philosophy - look at ideas in LD (free, equal,
cooperate on equal terms)
● method of book - O engaging in three disciplines
○ political philosophy (normative) - which values to pursue
○ political science - need to know how societies work, positive method
○ ancient (Greek) history - D in ancient Athens, historical example
Chapter 1
D BEFORE L
● L here as pictured by Rawls
● What is the L that O is trying to detach D from? a bunch of L norms
○ autonomy/liberty (non-political)
○ egalitarian distributive justice (as per Rawls; L is not historically committed to
this); BD only requires equality of citizens
○ universal HR (UDHR)
○ neutrality (secularism as per Rawls)
, ■ Rawls does not demand neutral effect but neutral justification (of
principles, policies) as reasonable people can disagree on them
■ e.g. religion, conceptions of good
● O is not saying that one must reject L values, instead that you can have a stable D
without buying into these four elements
● however, D can help support, promote, sustain L
LIBERALISTS AND POPULISM
● populism: arbitrary, unprincipled voice of a majority (‘the real people’) - threat to L?
● Jan Werner Müller: populism as approach to politics where some people illegiti-
mately claim to speak for the whole
● unprincipled, unconstrained majoritarianism
● claim: avoid populism through liberal D; extracting D from L leads to populism and
only way to avoid this is to constrain D though L
● O says this is wrong - D is principled, stable; does not lapse into populism
● D is not a majority tyranny
● Müller thinks populism and technocracy are two sides of the same coin
○ T promotes P backlash
○ argues that this oscillation is fundamentally antidemocratic
○ find a proper place for D to break this (Müller thinks this must be a LD while O
thinks it can be BD that is not liberal)
RELIGIOUS TRADITIONALISTS
● they do not like high emphasis on liberties, etc.
● they reject L - but must they also reject D?
● O claims that D does not implicate these L principles so religious traditionalists can
still buy into D
LEGITIMACY
● ambiguity of what sense of legitimacy O is talking about
● if D can be stable it will be de facto legitimate (accepted)
● legitimacy - D government right to rule? laws morally binding on citizens?
● justifying D - D government has authority, there is obligation to obey
, ● if government is democratically enacted, you are morally bound to obey the law -
ambitious argument
● weaker sense of legitimacy: government worth having, achieves important goods
● ambiguity - trying to show value of D system independent of L
● O is not taking further step of saying that you are morally bound to obey the laws
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
● different institutional ways to realise BD; direct Athenian D not possible today
● O puts high emphasis on civic education, genuine participation
Chapter 2
CLASSICAL ATHENS
● historical example of BD, shows that BD is possible + sustainable
● Q1: Was this really a D?
● Q2: How is this relevant to us in different circumstances of modernity?
MAJORITY TYRANNY
● picture given by critics of D - majority tyranny of the poor (populism)
● Plato - for technocracy as solution
● Aristoteles - form of government with mass participation (not D) - polity as an
answer (constitutional government, like D but with constraints)
● O argues that proper understanding of Athenian D is more like polity of Aristotle, D is
not an arbitrary majority rule
● mature understanding of D - constraints against majority (constitutional limits made
by people and enforced by them, decrees must conform with laws)
● within Assembly, experts could speak (not given equal weight so could de facto
become non-democratic)
● knowledge ≠ expertise
● A Sen: there has never been a famine in a D - knowledge about where food is
needed cannot be passed on in a non-D
Q1: WAS THIS REALLY A DEMOCRACY
● only citizens can participate, not women, foreigners, slaves
○ O will provide for this in Demopolis
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller injikim. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.15. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
