Titulo:
Democracia global con atajos
.
Sumario:
En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible con el ideal de autogobierno, pues bajo condiciones de deferencia ciega la sociedad carece de mecanismos para controlar e impugnar las decisiones políticas que la coaccionan. En este trabajo sostendré que si bien Lafont mantiene que los mini-públicos y otras innovaciones democráticas nos conducen de la deferencia a la deferencia ciega, y nos alejan del ideal democrático de autogobierno, esto no es así, o mejor dicho, depende del contexto. En alg... Ver más
Guardado en:
0122-9893
2346-2051
2023-03-22
105
123
M. Victoria Kristan - 2023
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
| id |
metarevistapublica_uexternado_revistaderechodelestado_81_article_8593 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
Democracia global con atajos Global Democracy with Shortcuts En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible con el ideal de autogobierno, pues bajo condiciones de deferencia ciega la sociedad carece de mecanismos para controlar e impugnar las decisiones políticas que la coaccionan. En este trabajo sostendré que si bien Lafont mantiene que los mini-públicos y otras innovaciones democráticas nos conducen de la deferencia a la deferencia ciega, y nos alejan del ideal democrático de autogobierno, esto no es así, o mejor dicho, depende del contexto. En algunos contextos los mini-públicos y otras herramientas de innovación democrática hacen la deferencia menos ciega de cuanto lo es efectivamente. Uno de esos contextos es el de la toma de decisiones sobre los asuntos globales, ya que no tenemos ningún sistema democrático de toma de esas decisiones. Para fundar mi objeción explicaré que, si aceptamos la tradicional distinción entre la concepción ideal y no-ideal de democracia, así como también la distinción entre estado de cosas como fin (como objetivo) y una teoría de transición, podemos también aceptar una serie de atajos, los atajos sustitutivos: aquellos destinados a resolver problemas de índole práctica identificados con la concepción no-ideal de la democracia, en nuestro caso, problemas prácticos globales. In her book, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont starts from three seemingly contested conceptions of democracy, namely: purely epistemic, deeply pluralistic and lottocratic. All three alternative conceptions, according to Lafont, lead to blind deference, which is incompatible with the ideal of self-government, since under conditions of blind deference, society lacks the mechanisms to control and challenge political decisions that coerce it. In this paper, I will argue that while Lafont claims that mini-publics and other democratic innovations lead us from deference to blind deference and away from the democratic ideal of self-government, this is not the case, or rather, it depends on the context. In some contexts, mini-publics and other instruments of democratic innovation make deference less blind than it actually is. One such context is the context of decision-making in global affairs, since we do not have a global democratic system to make such decisions. To support my objection, I will explain that if we accept the traditional distinction between the ideal and non-ideal conceptions of democracy, and the distinction between end-state vs. transitional theory, we can also accept a series of shortcuts, the substitute shortcuts: those aimed at solving practical problems identified with the non-ideal conception of democracy, in our case practical global problems. Kristan, M. Victoria Democratic participation, shortcuts, shortcuts as substitutes, blind deference Participación democrática, atajos, atajos sustitutivos, deferencia ciega 55 Núm. 55 , Año 2023 : Edición Especial Artículo de revista Journal article 2023-03-22T10:51:03Z 2023-03-22T10:51:03Z 2023-03-22 application/pdf text/html text/xml Departamento de Derecho Constitucional Revista Derecho del Estado 0122-9893 2346-2051 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8593 10.18601/01229893.n55.07 https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07 spa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 M. Victoria Kristan - 2023 Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0. 105 123 Alsina, V. y Martí, J. L. The Birth of the CrowdLaw Movement: Tech-Based Citizen Participation, Legitimacy and the Quality of Lawmaking. En Analyse & Kritik. 40(2), 2018, 337-358. Alter, K. J. y Lafont, C. Global Governance and the Problem of the Second Best: The Example of Reforming the World Trade Organization (2019). Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-13. Disponible en: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3524325 y http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3524325 Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy. En Cicchelli, V. y Mesure, S. (eds.), Cosmopolitanism in Hard Times. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Boston: Brill, 2021. Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy: A Restatement. En Cambridge Journal of Education. 42(1), 2012, 9-20. Archibugi, D. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Besson, S. Sovereignty, International Law and Democracy. En European Journal of International Law. 22(2), 2011, 373-387. Bohman, J. International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions. En International Affairs. 75(3), 1999, 499-513. Buchanan, A. y Keohane, R. O. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. En Ethics & International Affairs. 20(4), 2006, 405-437. Christiano, T. Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions. En Besson, S. y Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Dahl, R. A. A Democratic Paradox? En Political Science Quarterly. 115(1), 2000, 35-40. Dalton, R. J.; Cain, B. E. y Scarrow, S. E. Democratic Publics and Democratic Institutions. En Cain, B. E.; Dalton, R. J. y Scarrow, S. E. (eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 2003, 250-275. Dryzek, J. Transnational Democracy. En Journal of Political Philosophy. (7)1, 1999, 30-51. Farrell, M. Enseñando ética. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo, 2015. Geißel, B. Introduction, On the Evaluation of Participatory Innovations. En Geißel, B. y Joas, M. (eds.), Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy? Opladen - Berlin - Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2013, 9-32. Goodin, R. Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference. En Journal of Deliberative Democracy. 16(2), 2020, 25-32. doi: 10.16997/jdd.393. Goodin, R. E. y Dryzek, J. S. Making Use of Mini-Publics. En Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press, 2008. Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon, 1975. Habermas, J. The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society. En Constellations. 15(4), 2008, 444-455. Held, D. Principles of Cosmopolitan Order. En Held, D. y Wallace, G. (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge: Polity, 2010. Held, D. Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order. En Millennium. 37(3), 2009, 535-547. Kristan, M. V. Sovereign Schliberties, Where Pettit’s International Protection of Individual Freedom Falls Short. En Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. (46), 2022. doi: 10.4000/revus.8100. Kristan, M. V. The Game of Global Domination. Tesis doctoral: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2021. Lafont, C. Democracia sin atajos. Una concepción participativa de la democracia deliberativa. Madrid: Trotta, 2021. Lafont, C. Innovaciones democráticas y la amenaza del tecnopopulismo. En Revista de las Cortes Generales. (1)112, 2022, 45-61. Magaña, P. The Political Representation of Nonhuman Animals. En Social Theory and Practice, 2022. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract2022811171. Maisley, N. El derecho de la sociedad civil a participar en la creación del derecho internacional. Tesis doctoral: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2019. Martí, J. L. A Global Republic to Prevent Global Domination. En Diacrítica. Revista do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho. 24(2), 2010, 31-72. Martí, J. L. Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law. En D’Aspremont, J.; Besson, S. y Knuchel, S. (eds.), Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 724-748. Martí, J. L. Política y bien común global. En C. Espósito y F. Garcimartín (eds.), La protección de bienes jurídicos globales, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Vol. 16, 2012, 17-37. Martí, J. L. The Role of New Technologies in Deliberative Democracy. En Amato, G.; Barbisan, B. y Pinelli, C. (eds.), Rule of Law v. Majoritarian Democracy. London: Hart, 2021. Nanz, P. y Steffek, J. Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere. En Government and Opposition. 39(2), 2004, 314-335. Nino, C. S. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1996. Peters, A. Are We Moving Towards Constitutionalization of the World Community? En Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-135. Peters, A. Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures. En Leiden Journal of International Law. 19(3), 2006, 579-610. Peters, A. Dual Democracy. En Klabbers, J.; Peters, A. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.), The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 263-341. Pettit, P. A Republican Law of Peoples. En European Journal of Political Theory. 9(1), 2010, 70-94. Pettit, P. Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2014. Pettit, P. On the People’s Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pettit, P. Republicanismo. Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno. Barcelona: Paidós, 1999. Pettit, P. The Globalized Republican Ideal. En Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. 9(1), 2016, 48-68. Pettit, P. The Republican Law of Peoples: A Restatement. En Buckinx, B.; Trejo-Mathys, J. y Waligore, T. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives. Oxford: Routledge, 2015, 49-82. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Rawls, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. Sen, A. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2009. Simmons, A. J. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Philosophy & Public Affairs. 38(1), 2010, 5-36. Slaughter, A. M. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 2017. Smith, G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Stemplowska, Z. What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory? En Social Theory and Practice. (34)3, 2008, 319-340. Stemplowska, Z. y Swift, A. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Estlund, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 373-389. Valentini, L. Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. En Philosophy Compass. 7(9), 2012, 654-664. https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13965 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13966 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13985 info:eu-repo/semantics/article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 Text Publication |
| institution |
UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA |
| thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADEXTERNADODECOLOMBIA/logo.png |
| country_str |
Colombia |
| collection |
Revista Derecho del Estado |
| title |
Democracia global con atajos |
| spellingShingle |
Democracia global con atajos Kristan, M. Victoria Democratic participation, shortcuts, shortcuts as substitutes, blind deference Participación democrática, atajos, atajos sustitutivos, deferencia ciega |
| title_short |
Democracia global con atajos |
| title_full |
Democracia global con atajos |
| title_fullStr |
Democracia global con atajos |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Democracia global con atajos |
| title_sort |
democracia global con atajos |
| title_eng |
Global Democracy with Shortcuts |
| description |
En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible con el ideal de autogobierno, pues bajo condiciones de deferencia ciega la sociedad carece de mecanismos para controlar e impugnar las decisiones políticas que la coaccionan. En este trabajo sostendré que si bien Lafont mantiene que los mini-públicos y otras innovaciones democráticas nos conducen de la deferencia a la deferencia ciega, y nos alejan del ideal democrático de autogobierno, esto no es así, o mejor dicho, depende del contexto. En algunos contextos los mini-públicos y otras herramientas de innovación democrática hacen la deferencia menos ciega de cuanto lo es efectivamente. Uno de esos contextos es el de la toma de decisiones sobre los asuntos globales, ya que no tenemos ningún sistema democrático de toma de esas decisiones. Para fundar mi objeción explicaré que, si aceptamos la tradicional distinción entre la concepción ideal y no-ideal de democracia, así como también la distinción entre estado de cosas como fin (como objetivo) y una teoría de transición, podemos también aceptar una serie de atajos, los atajos sustitutivos: aquellos destinados a resolver problemas de índole práctica identificados con la concepción no-ideal de la democracia, en nuestro caso, problemas prácticos globales.
|
| description_eng |
In her book, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont starts from three seemingly contested conceptions of democracy, namely: purely epistemic, deeply pluralistic and lottocratic. All three alternative conceptions, according to Lafont, lead to blind deference, which is incompatible with the ideal of self-government, since under conditions of blind deference, society lacks the mechanisms to control and challenge political decisions that coerce it. In this paper, I will argue that while Lafont claims that mini-publics and other democratic innovations lead us from deference to blind deference and away from the democratic ideal of self-government, this is not the case, or rather, it depends on the context. In some contexts, mini-publics and other instruments of democratic innovation make deference less blind than it actually is. One such context is the context of decision-making in global affairs, since we do not have a global democratic system to make such decisions. To support my objection, I will explain that if we accept the traditional distinction between the ideal and non-ideal conceptions of democracy, and the distinction between end-state vs. transitional theory, we can also accept a series of shortcuts, the substitute shortcuts: those aimed at solving practical problems identified with the non-ideal conception of democracy, in our case practical global problems.
|
| author |
Kristan, M. Victoria |
| author_facet |
Kristan, M. Victoria |
| topic |
Democratic participation, shortcuts, shortcuts as substitutes, blind deference Participación democrática, atajos, atajos sustitutivos, deferencia ciega |
| topic_facet |
Democratic participation, shortcuts, shortcuts as substitutes, blind deference Participación democrática, atajos, atajos sustitutivos, deferencia ciega |
| topicspa_str_mv |
Participación democrática, atajos, atajos sustitutivos, deferencia ciega |
| citationissue |
55 |
| citationedition |
Núm. 55 , Año 2023 : Edición Especial |
| publisher |
Departamento de Derecho Constitucional |
| ispartofjournal |
Revista Derecho del Estado |
| source |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8593 |
| language |
spa |
| format |
Article |
| rights |
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 M. Victoria Kristan - 2023 Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0. info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| references |
Alsina, V. y Martí, J. L. The Birth of the CrowdLaw Movement: Tech-Based Citizen Participation, Legitimacy and the Quality of Lawmaking. En Analyse & Kritik. 40(2), 2018, 337-358. Alter, K. J. y Lafont, C. Global Governance and the Problem of the Second Best: The Example of Reforming the World Trade Organization (2019). Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-13. Disponible en: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3524325 y http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3524325 Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy. En Cicchelli, V. y Mesure, S. (eds.), Cosmopolitanism in Hard Times. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Boston: Brill, 2021. Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy: A Restatement. En Cambridge Journal of Education. 42(1), 2012, 9-20. Archibugi, D. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Besson, S. Sovereignty, International Law and Democracy. En European Journal of International Law. 22(2), 2011, 373-387. Bohman, J. International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions. En International Affairs. 75(3), 1999, 499-513. Buchanan, A. y Keohane, R. O. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. En Ethics & International Affairs. 20(4), 2006, 405-437. Christiano, T. Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions. En Besson, S. y Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Dahl, R. A. A Democratic Paradox? En Political Science Quarterly. 115(1), 2000, 35-40. Dalton, R. J.; Cain, B. E. y Scarrow, S. E. Democratic Publics and Democratic Institutions. En Cain, B. E.; Dalton, R. J. y Scarrow, S. E. (eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 2003, 250-275. Dryzek, J. Transnational Democracy. En Journal of Political Philosophy. (7)1, 1999, 30-51. Farrell, M. Enseñando ética. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo, 2015. Geißel, B. Introduction, On the Evaluation of Participatory Innovations. En Geißel, B. y Joas, M. (eds.), Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy? Opladen - Berlin - Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2013, 9-32. Goodin, R. Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference. En Journal of Deliberative Democracy. 16(2), 2020, 25-32. doi: 10.16997/jdd.393. Goodin, R. E. y Dryzek, J. S. Making Use of Mini-Publics. En Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press, 2008. Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon, 1975. Habermas, J. The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society. En Constellations. 15(4), 2008, 444-455. Held, D. Principles of Cosmopolitan Order. En Held, D. y Wallace, G. (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge: Polity, 2010. Held, D. Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order. En Millennium. 37(3), 2009, 535-547. Kristan, M. V. Sovereign Schliberties, Where Pettit’s International Protection of Individual Freedom Falls Short. En Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. (46), 2022. doi: 10.4000/revus.8100. Kristan, M. V. The Game of Global Domination. Tesis doctoral: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2021. Lafont, C. Democracia sin atajos. Una concepción participativa de la democracia deliberativa. Madrid: Trotta, 2021. Lafont, C. Innovaciones democráticas y la amenaza del tecnopopulismo. En Revista de las Cortes Generales. (1)112, 2022, 45-61. Magaña, P. The Political Representation of Nonhuman Animals. En Social Theory and Practice, 2022. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract2022811171. Maisley, N. El derecho de la sociedad civil a participar en la creación del derecho internacional. Tesis doctoral: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2019. Martí, J. L. A Global Republic to Prevent Global Domination. En Diacrítica. Revista do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho. 24(2), 2010, 31-72. Martí, J. L. Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law. En D’Aspremont, J.; Besson, S. y Knuchel, S. (eds.), Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 724-748. Martí, J. L. Política y bien común global. En C. Espósito y F. Garcimartín (eds.), La protección de bienes jurídicos globales, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Vol. 16, 2012, 17-37. Martí, J. L. The Role of New Technologies in Deliberative Democracy. En Amato, G.; Barbisan, B. y Pinelli, C. (eds.), Rule of Law v. Majoritarian Democracy. London: Hart, 2021. Nanz, P. y Steffek, J. Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere. En Government and Opposition. 39(2), 2004, 314-335. Nino, C. S. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1996. Peters, A. Are We Moving Towards Constitutionalization of the World Community? En Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-135. Peters, A. Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures. En Leiden Journal of International Law. 19(3), 2006, 579-610. Peters, A. Dual Democracy. En Klabbers, J.; Peters, A. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.), The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 263-341. Pettit, P. A Republican Law of Peoples. En European Journal of Political Theory. 9(1), 2010, 70-94. Pettit, P. Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2014. Pettit, P. On the People’s Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Pettit, P. Republicanismo. Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno. Barcelona: Paidós, 1999. Pettit, P. The Globalized Republican Ideal. En Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. 9(1), 2016, 48-68. Pettit, P. The Republican Law of Peoples: A Restatement. En Buckinx, B.; Trejo-Mathys, J. y Waligore, T. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives. Oxford: Routledge, 2015, 49-82. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Rawls, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. Sen, A. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2009. Simmons, A. J. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Philosophy & Public Affairs. 38(1), 2010, 5-36. Slaughter, A. M. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 2017. Smith, G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Stemplowska, Z. What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory? En Social Theory and Practice. (34)3, 2008, 319-340. Stemplowska, Z. y Swift, A. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Estlund, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 373-389. Valentini, L. Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. En Philosophy Compass. 7(9), 2012, 654-664. |
| type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| type_content |
Text |
| publishDate |
2023-03-22 |
| date_accessioned |
2023-03-22T10:51:03Z |
| date_available |
2023-03-22T10:51:03Z |
| url |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8593 |
| url_doi |
https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07 |
| issn |
0122-9893 |
| eissn |
2346-2051 |
| doi |
10.18601/01229893.n55.07 |
| citationstartpage |
105 |
| citationendpage |
123 |
| url2_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13965 |
| url3_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13966 |
| url4_str_mv |
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13985 |
| _version_ |
1811199921511989248 |