Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn <p><em><img class="shadow" src="/public/site/images/adminglobal/Cover-GJ-20192.png" alt="" align="left">Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric</em> (TPR) is a peer-reviewed, open-access e-journal which publishes original research in international political theory, with special emphasis on global justice. We are particularly interested in bridging the gap between political theory, empirical research, and the study of political practices and communication. <a title="About the Journal" href="/global/index.php/gjn/pages/view/about-the-journal">Read more...</a></p> en-US l.smith@manchester.ac.uk (Leonie Smith) m.luta@ub.uni-frankfurt.de (Marius Luta) Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 OJS 3.1.2.1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Introduction https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/241 <p>N/A</p> Miriam Ronzoni, Tiziana Torresi Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/241 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Populism and Global Justice: A Sibling Rivalry? https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/207 <p>As academic literatures and political demands, global justice and populism look like competing ways of diagnosing and addressing neoliberal inequality. But both misunderstand neoliberalism and consequently risk reinforcing rather than undermining it. Neoliberalism does not just break down political and social hierarchies, but also relies on and sustains them. Unless populists recognize this, they will find that assertions of sovereignty do more to reinforce neoliberalism and reproduce its hierarchies than to resist them. Recognizing neoliberalism as not simply corrosive of solidarity but also producing its own affective ties suggests that global justice advocates need to develop a critique of individual attitudes that egalitarian liberals have often seen as private and been hesitant to judge. In short, if either populism or global justice hope to take advantage of neoliberalism’s failures to advance an egalitarian politics, they need to reckon more carefully with their own entanglement with neoliberalism’s hopes and hierarchies.</p> Benjamin McKean Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/207 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 05:36:37 +0000 Transnational Populism, Democracy, and Representation: Pitfalls and Potentialities https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/208 <p>Current work on populism stresses its relationship to nationalism. However, populists increasingly make claims to represent ‘the people’ across beyond national borders. This advent of ‘transnational populism’ has implications for work on cosmopolitan democracy and global justice. In this paper, we advance and substantiate three claims. First, we stress populism’s performative and claimmaking nature. Second, we argue that transnational populism is both theoretically possible and empirically evident in the contemporary global political landscape. Finally, we link these points to debates on democracy beyond the state. We argue that, due to the a) performative nature of populism, b) complex interdependencies of peoples, and c) need for populists to gain and maintain support, individuals in one state will potentially have their preferences, interests, and wants altered by transnational populists’ representative claims. We unpack what is normatively problematic in terms of democratic legitimacy about this and discuss institutional and non-institutional remedies.</p> Jonathan Kuyper, Benjamin Moffitt Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/208 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Why Populists Do Well on Social Networks https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/203 <p>A link between populism and social media is often suspected. This paper spells out a set of possible mechanisms underpinning this link: that social media changes the communication structure of the public sphere, making it harder for citizens to obtain evidence that refutes populist assumptions. By developing a model of the public sphere, four core functions of the public sphere are identified: exposing citizens to diverse information, promoting equality of deliberative opportunity, creating deliberative transparency, and producing common knowledge. A wellworking public sphere allows citizens to learn that there are genuine disagreements among citizens that are held in good faith. Social media makes it harder to gain this insight, opening the door for populist ideology.</p> Kai Spiekermann Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/203 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 05:51:33 +0000 Populist Appeals and Populist Conversations https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/205 <p>This article sheds light upon the role of the audience in the construction and amendment of populist representative claims that in themselves strengthen representative-represented relationships and simultaneously strengthen ties between the represented who belong to different constituencies. I argue that changes in populist representative claims can be explained by studying the discursive relationship between a populist representative and the audience as a conversation in which both poles give and receive something. From this perspective, populist representative claims, I also argue, can be understood as acts of bonding with the intended effect of constituting ‘the people,’ and inputs from the audience can be seen as conversational exercitives. Populist appeals therefore may change when the audience enacts new permissibility facts and signals to populist representatives that there is another way to strengthen relationships between several individuals belonging to otherwise-different constituencies.</p> Corrado Fumagalli Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/205 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Populism, Cosmopolitanism, or Democratic Realism? https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/221 <p>This article argues that populism, cosmopolitanism, and calls for global justice should be understood not as theoretical positions but as appeals to different segments of democratic electorates with the aim of assembling winning political coalitions. This view is called democratic realism: it considers political competition in democracies from a perspective that is realist in the sense that it focuses not first on the content of competing political claims but on the relationships among different components of the coalitions they work to mobilise in the pursuit of power. It is argued that Laclau’s populist theory offers a sort of realist critique of other populists, but that his view neglects the crucial dynamics of political coalition-building. When the relation of populism to global justice is rethought from this democratic realist angle, one can better understand the sorts of challenges each faces, and also where and how they come into conflict.</p> Christopher Meckstroth Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/221 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:07:00 +0000 Partisan Complicity in Democratic Backsliding https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/206 <p>Recent developments in Hungary and Poland have made democratic backsliding a major issue of concern within the European Union (EU). This article focuses on the secondary agents that facilitate democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland: the European People’s Party (EPP), which has continually protected the Hungarian Fidesz government from EU sanctions, and the Hungarian ruling party Fidesz, which repeatedly promised to block any EU-level sanctions against Poland in the Council. The article analyses these agents’ behaviour as an instance of transnational complicity and passes a tentative judgment as to which of the two cases is normatively more problematic. The analysis has implications for possible countervailing responses to democratic backsliding within EU member states.</p> Fabio Wolkenstein Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/206 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:24:51 +0000 Containing Populism at the Cost of Democracy? Political vs. Economic Responses to Democratic Backsliding in the EU https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/220 <p>This paper critically engages the legal and political framework for responding to democracy and rule of law backsliding in the EU. I develop a new and original critique of Article 7 TEU based on it being democratically illegitimate and normatively incoherent qua itself in conflict with EU fundamental values. Other more incremental and scaleable responses are desirable, and the paper moves on to assess the legitimacy of economic sanctions such as tying access to EU funds to performance on democratic and rule of law indicators or imposing fines on backsliding states. I hold such sanctions to be a priori legitimate, and argue that in some cases economic sanctions are even normatively required, given that EU material support of backsliding member states can amount to material complicity in their backsliding. However, an economic conditionality mechanism would need to be designed to minimize unjust and counterproductive effects. One way to pursue this could be to complement sanctions against the backsliding government with investment for prodemocratic actors in that state.</p> Tom Theuns Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/220 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 06:39:22 +0000 EU immigration, Welfare Rights and Populism: A Normative Appraisal of Welfare Populism https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/202 <p>Populists in the EU often call for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights. These calls are often demagogic and parochial. This paper aims to show what exactly is both distinct and problematic with these populist calls from a normative point of view while not necessarily reducible to demagogy and parochialism. The overall aim of the paper is not to argue that all populists call for such restrictions nor to claim that all calls for such restrictions are populist. The purpose of the paper is rather humble. It only aims to show that populist calls for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights are characterised by two normatively problematic arguments that target two different subsets of the citizenry: what I dub for the purpose of this paper the moralists and the immoralists. It is the way populists address these two subsets of the citizenry, as well as the fact that they could simultaneously appeal to the concerns of both groups, that makes populist approaches to welfare rights both conceptually distinct to other approaches as well as potentially politically appealing to a more diverse population of voters.</p> Dimitrios E. Efthymiou Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/202 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:18:00 +0000 Failing Solidarity: Justified or Excused? https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/209 <p>The concept of solidarity has been receiving growing attention from scholars in a wide range of disciplines. While this trend coincides with widespread unsuccessful attempts to achieve solidarity in the real world, the failure of solidarity as such remains a relatively unexplored topic. In the case of the so-called European Union (EU) refugee crisis, the fact that EU member states failed to fulfil their commitment to solidarity is now regarded as established wisdom. But as we try to come to terms with failing solidarity in the EU we are faced with a number of important questions: are all instances of failing solidarity equally morally reprehensible? Are some motivations for resorting to unsolidaristic measures more valid than others? What claims have an effective countervailing force against the commitment to act in solidarity?</p> Eleonora Milazzo Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/209 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Counteracting Populist Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: Is Government’s Action Legitimate? https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/204 <p>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.</p> Laura Santi Amantini Copyright (c) 2020 Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric https://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/index.php/gjn/article/view/204 Sun, 15 Nov 2020 07:35:46 +0000