King's College London complete notes of final year Jurisprudence module
12 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
Law
Instelling
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
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper injikim. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,94. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
