Journal of Political Philosophy最新文献

{"title":"Evaluating International Agreements: The Voluntarist Reply and Its Limits","authors":"O. Suttle","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12315","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"231 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139228944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Journal of Political Philosophy Index, Volume 31 (2023)","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12314","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"31 4","pages":"517-518"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68180860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The challenge of policing minorities in a liberal society","authors":"Joseph Heath","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12313","url":null,"abstract":"The problem with police is not that they are fascist pigs but that our country is ruled by majoritarian pigs. Ta-Nehisi Coates To change the police without changing the police role in society is as futile as the labors of Sisyphus. John van Maanen This question is, I will argue, of considerable importance to political philosophy, because it exposes a tension in the liberal project as a whole. It has, unfortunately, been subject to relative neglect; there has until recently been very little philosophical or normative literature on policing, much less the policing of minorities.3 There are two reasons for this, both of them based ultimately on the perception that the problem is theoretically straightforward, and so does not raise any philosophically difficult questions.4 With respect to policing in general, many political philosophers appear to believe that the police are uninteresting, because they serve the purely instrumental role of enforcing statutory law. And with respect to minorities, widespread acceptance of the fascist pig theory leads to the perception that the problem is also normatively straightforward. If tensions between police and minorities are caused by the police being racist, then the solution is obviously for the police to become less racist. These two views, when combined, generate a highly simplistic account of the problem of policing minorities.5 It suggests that, since the police are there to enforce the law, all they need to do is enforce the law in a non-discriminatory way, treating all citizens equally, and the problem should go away. The argument, however, rests on a false premise, since the police do a great deal more than simply enforce the law, and it is primarily these other activities that give rise to problems. My preliminary contention in this article will be that both of the underlying theories about policing are false or misleading. Obviously, the police do enforce the law, but as several decades of work in the sociology of policing have shown, this is not all that they do, and, indeed, this does not even add up to a substantial fraction of what they do. And equally obviously, there are some police who are racist, both consciously and subconsciously, but this goes only part of the way to explaining the seriousness of the difficulties that practically every major police force experiences in its relations with particular minority groups.6 Indeed, a great deal of the motivation for the shift in emphasis toward “systemic racism” in expert discourse on the subject lies in the recognition that the emphasis on eliminating attitudinal racism or increasing officer diversity has reached the point of sharply diminishing returns in many jurisdictions.7 In order to understand the broader source of the problem, I will argue, it is necessary to see that effective policing is inherently communitarian. The result is that minority groups who are unable to implement a self-policing regime find themselves subject to coercive enfor","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135759116","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Epistemic Dimensions of Civil Disobedience","authors":"Alexander Bryan","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12310","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, protests against the public health measures instituted by governments have become a familiar sight on the streets of major cities across the world. The policies these protests challenge, and the kinds of claims made by protestors, have differed across jurisdiction and have evolved through different stages of the pandemic, with protests across Europe and North America focussing at various times on the supposed injustice of initial lockdown measures, the rollout of vaccines, and the implementation of vaccine mandates. A significant number of these protests have been, in various respects, legally prohibited; many of the earlier protests violated emergency legislation restricting the number of people or households permitted to gather in public, while later actions include occupations of the offices of media companies and refusal to pay taxes.1 At least some participants in these protests have been animated by false claims that the pandemic is a hoax, or that it is in some sense deliberate, or that it is being exploited by politicians and businesses to implement policies of radical social control. Many participants and commentators have described some of these actions as forms of civil disobedience; a placard displayed by one protestor in Bristol in November 2020 stated that ‘civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt’,2 while a Canadian anti-lockdown campaigner compared his refusal to provide details of his vaccination status in a coffee shop to the actions of Rosa Parks.3 Similar claims have been made regarding the protests in Ottawa in late 2021/early 2022.4 These protests raise important questions regarding the conditions for permissible civil disobedience in a pandemic specifically,5 but also highlight some more general questions for theories of civil disobedience. Some of these relate to the use of civil disobedience in the pursuit of ‘anti-democratic and illiberal goals’, such as whether broadly liberal theories of civil disobedience effectively apply across these cases as well as the justice-promoting paradigm examples.6 In this article I focus on a slightly different issue: is the justification of civil disobedience conditional on dissenters satisfying some epistemic conditions? If so, what kinds of conditions? Perhaps surprisingly, the two most directly relevant philosophical literatures suggest quite different answers to these questions. Within broadly liberal theories of civil disobedience they have received little direct attention. Such accounts generally view the justification of civil disobedience as primarily relating to the conduct of the dissenters during and after disobedience. The justification of an act of civil disobedience just relates to the question of whether agents act in accordance with certain constraints, which may include non-violence, civility, and accepting punishment. However, there are some accounts within this literature, such as those deve","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135476984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Debate: Political Authority, Functionalism, and the Problem of Annexation","authors":"Arthur Hill","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12311","url":null,"abstract":"Deciding whether a state has political authority is arguably the most fundamental judgment we can make about its moral standing. When a state possesses legitimate authority, it has the exclusive right to govern the occupants of its territory. Even when its decisions are inefficient, irrational, or morally mistaken, its subjects are expected to comply with the legal order it establishes, and outsiders are expected to refrain from attempting to interfere with its internal affairs. A state that lacks authority, on the other hand, enjoys no such protection: provided there is an adequate justification for doing so, its subjects are permitted to actively resist attempts to enforce the law, and outsiders are permitted to intervene in order to reform or replace state institutions.1 Given these practical stakes, it's crucial to settle on a plausible account of the requirements for legitimate political authority that can guide our assessments of both nascent and established states. Recently, Alexander Motchoulski has developed a novel “hybrid” account of political authority2 that he claims is up to this task. This hybrid view, which combines elements from existing functionalist and fair-play accounts3, establishes the authority of particular states in two stages.4 In the first stage, we determine whether the state satisfies various functionalist criteria such as the consistent protection of basic rights, the maintenance of democratic institutions, and the reliable provision of essential public goods. If the state passes this test, we then examine whether the principle of fair play gives the territorially demarcated populations the state claims jurisdiction over reason to comply with its laws and support its institutions. This involves evaluating the goods provided by the state to see if they are either acceptable upon reflection or morally required. A good is acceptable if, given their interests, the recipients have reason to prefer acquiring the good plus a corresponding duty to reciprocate over not receiving this good at all. On the other hand, a good is morally required just in case the recipients have a moral duty to contribute to its provision regardless of whether the good is acceptable to them.5 If the aforementioned political goods meet either of these conditions, individuals benefiting from them have a duty to reciprocate the political cooperation of their co-citizens by obeying the laws of the state and doing their fair share to maintain its cooperative structure over time. It is this duty, owed by the citizens of a state to one another, that generates particularized relationships of authority between states and populations.6 According to Motchoulski, the primary attraction of his view is that, unlike orthodox functionalism, it is able to account for our beliefs that: (i) states generally lack authority over populations they incorporate through acts of non-consensual annexation or colonization, and (ii) historical injustices committed by the stat","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135769720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gentrification and Integration","authors":"Jamie Draper","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12312","url":null,"abstract":"How should the injustices associated with the enduring segregation of Black Americans be addressed? In contemporary debates about racial justice, there are two broad answers to this question. “New integrationists” argue that integration is necessary for remedying racial inequalities.1 “Egalitarian pluralists” instead argue that we should promote strategies that seek to improve the material condition of Black Americans without integration.2 Political philosophers have also recently begun to examine an apparently unrelated phenomenon: gentrification. According to its critics, gentrification may undermine social equality, violate residents' occupancy rights, subject residents to domination, impede valuable forms of democratic communication and/or impinge upon self-respect.3 But so far—with some important exceptions that I discuss below—political theorists have not examined the relationship between gentrification and integration in much depth. This article explores how racialised contexts of gentrification relate to and can shed light on the debate between new integrationists and egalitarian pluralists. I take as my focal point the debate between Elizabeth Anderson and Tommie Shelby.4 I examine three arguments for residential integration that Anderson makes: the opportunity argument, the epistemic-democratic argument, and the relational-democratic argument. I argue that racialised contexts of gentrification reveal some important limits to each argument for integration. But the upshot of my argument is not that we should abandon integration in favour of egalitarian pluralism. Rather, my suggestion is that examining racialised contexts of gentrification gives us a better understanding of the conditions under which residential integration can—and cannot—promote racial justice. My argument leaves open space for a modified defence of integration that takes these conditions into account. Ultimately, however, I suggest that such a modified defence of integration faces some important challenges of its own. This article's second aim is to contribute to the emerging literature on gentrification in political philosophy by examining its racial dynamics. By analysing the racial dynamics of gentrification, I bring to light some features of gentrification beyond residential displacement—in particular, the dynamics of social interaction in gentrifying neighbourhoods—which are relevant to its moral evaluation. My argument also responds to some recent arguments made by Andrew Pierce and Hwa Young Kim and Andrew Walton to the effect that gentrification's benefits can be harnessed, and its burdens can be limited, for the project of integration.5 My focus in this article is primarily on residential integration, though I do also discuss its relationship to other forms of integration at points. Residential integration is usually taken to be a central component—and often the central component—of the broader project of racial integration, because of the central role that res","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135107869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Privacy, Publicity, and the Right to Be Forgotten","authors":"Hannah Carnegy-Arbuthnott","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12308","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many of us will remember the sense of foreboding induced by the simple threat, usually uttered by a teacher: ‘It will go on your permanent record’. This administrative bogeyman exploits our early awareness of the importance of being able to leave some things in the past. While some of the things we do may go on public record at various points in our lives, it used to be possible to comfort ourselves with the thought that these would soon be buried deep in the archives, where most people would not care to look. In the digital age, however, search engines do the digging and can serve up previously long-forgotten results on a simple search of a person's name.</p><p>This article takes up the question of what kinds of claims we have against information being dug up from our past. Specifically, it focuses on information that is legitimately a matter of public record. When some information has been stored in an archive and has, in principle, been accessible to anyone, what claims, if any, do we have against that information being brought back to light? Many people would find it intrusive for someone to dig through archives and publicize afresh the information they found out about you there, but it is not clear what the basis of such a complaint would be. Moreover, it is this kind of complaint that is provided protection through data-protection provisions colloquially referred to as the right to be forgotten. Such measures are typically framed as privacy protections. While some have argued that we can have privacy rights over information that has been made public,1 I argue that appeals to privacy fail in cases concerning information that is legitimately a matter of public record.</p><p>Paying attention to the reasons we have to object to the dredging up of outdated information reveals a new category of claims that are distinct from claims to privacy, but serve the same general interest in self-presentation that privacy scholars have long been concerned with. I call these claims against distortion. We can understand such claims as falling under a general principle of reputational control embedded in the historic right of personality. That general principle provides the basis for claims to privacy, claims against defamation, and, as I will argue, claims against distortion.</p><p>The purpose of invoking the right of personality is to identify a general principle embedded in that concept, and to then draw out a taxonomy of claims that serve that principle in distinct ways. One advantage of separating these three categories of claims is that it allows us to retain clear boundaries around the concept of privacy, which has often come under fire for suffering from a plethora of meanings.2</p><p>On my account, claims to privacy are claims to prevent certain information from becoming publicly available beyond one's audience of choice. Privacy provides one aspect of reputational control by allowing us to decide who we share various aspects of oneself with. Claim","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"31 4","pages":"494-516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jopp.12308","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68179332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking moral claim rights","authors":"Laura Valentini","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12306","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion of rights is ubiquitous in philosophical discourse. As Allen Buchanan put it over thirty years ago, ‘Future historians of moral and political philosophy may well label our period the <i>Age of Rights</i>’.1 This notion is not only popular, but also complex. As the legal scholar W. N. Hohfeld famously suggested, rights are susceptible to multiple interpretations: they can be claims, liberties, powers, or immunities.2 Despite this variation, the consensus view is that the core instance of a right is a claim right.3</p><p>In the moral domain, claim rights designate a binary relation between a right-holder and a duty-bearer, where the former stands in a <i>distinctive moral position</i> vis-à-vis the latter.4 While there is controversy as to what, precisely, this distinctive moral position amounts to, the idea that claim rights capture it is seldom put into question.</p><p>In this article, I challenge this way of thinking. I argue that the language of claim rights is ill suited for the purpose of picking out a distinctive moral position.5 I show that the notion of a claim right is susceptible to several disambiguations, just as the notion of a right itself is. From this, I conclude that we should <i>either</i> no longer appeal to the concept of a claim right in moral theorizing <i>or</i> rethink its purpose.</p><p>The article proceeds as follows. In Section II, I set out two desiderata that a plausible definition of moral claim rights should satisfy. The definition should: (a) capture a distinctive moral position and (b) account for paradigmatic instances of claim rights in our ordinary language. In Section III, I show that the two most prominent accounts of claim rights fail to meet desideratum (b). Of course, the fact that prominent accounts are unsatisfactory does not mean that no satisfactory account could be developed. To support this stronger claim, in Section IV, I offer a systematization of our language of claim rights. I suggest that the greatest common denominator of such language is the idea of empowerment, and show that paradigmatic statements about claim rights track either the justification for certain forms of empowerment (<i>justification rights statements</i>) or empowerment itself and the particular status it confers on individuals (<i>status rights statements</i>).</p><p>As I explain in Section V, this twofold connection between claim rights and empowerment reveals that, for structural reasons, our desiderata cannot be jointly satisfied. No notion of claim rights can <i>both</i> capture justification as well as status rights statements <i>and</i> pick out a distinctive moral position. In Section VI, I consider three possible implications of this conclusion. One is that we should abandon the notion of claim rights in moral theorizing. Another, less drastic possibility is that, in light of its disjunctive structure, the notion of claim rights should be given a different purpose. A third possibility, for those not persua","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"31 4","pages":"433-451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jopp.12306","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68179911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The wrong of mercenarism: a promissory account","authors":"Chiara Cordelli","doi":"10.1111/jopp.12305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12305","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent history has seen a rapid growth in the involvement of private parties in war conflicts. In 2020, there were almost twice as many private contractors as US soldiers in Afghanistan.1 In the ongoing war in Ukraine, private actors are allegedly deployed by both parties in the conflict.2 Originally hired by states to provide support services from catering to logistics, private military firms (PMFs) have progressively taken on functions, including combat tasks, that were deemed, at least in the last century, inherently governmental.3 The phenomenon amounts to an unprecedented form of corporatized mercenarism.4</p><p>The condemnation of mercenarism has an illustrious history. While Machiavelli famously deprecated mercenaries' lack of loyalty and tendency to corrupt the state,5 Rousseau worried that hiring mercenaries, rather than having citizens fight wars, would lead the latter to value comfort more than republican freedom. Recent critics argue, among other things, that fighting for profit is inherently wrong;6 that the privatization of war leads to an unjust distribution of access to security;7 that it allows both states and private parties to escape democratic accountability;8 and that it provides incentives to escalate conflicts and to increase the use of violence in the battlefield.9 Some contemporary philosophers have, on the other side, shown a friendlier face towards mercenarism. Most prominently, Cécile Fabre argues that, at least under ideal circumstances, private parties have a right to sell their soldiering services to states, for the purpose of just defensive killing, and states are at liberty to buy those services from them.10</p><p>Departing from Fabre's (qualified) defense of mercenarism, my goal is to provide an account of the wrong of privatized war, which neither rests on the controversial claim that fighting for profit is inherently wrong, nor assumes that privatization leads to unjust distributive outcomes, a lack of accountability, or the disproportionate use of force (although it may). I argue that, even in the absence of such problems, the privatization of (at least some) military tasks would amount to a condition of <i>double domination</i>, whereby both those exposed to the mercenary's use of force and, perhaps more surprisingly, the mercenary themself is dominated: that is to say, subject to the arbitrary will of another. This can occur even within the context of a just war.</p><p>To make my case, I will first argue that the state's outsourcing of certain military tasks to private parties, including most combat tasks, consists of a system of contracts between states and such parties that contain either invalid (not binding) or seriously problematic promises. Either the mercenary's promissory offer to perform those tasks entails the <i>alienation</i> of certain rights that cannot be so alienated, in which case the promise is invalid, or, if limited to the mere <i>waiving</i> of those rights, then the state is generall","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"31 4","pages":"470-493"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jopp.12305","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68180665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In Search of Global Memory: Where Does the Transnational Turn in Memory Studies Lead?","authors":"A. F. Pavlovskii","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-166-194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2023-109-2-166-194","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the transnational turn in the research of collective and cultural memory in the 21st century, reflecting the desire of scientists working within Memory studies to go beyond “methodological nationalism” and explore the formation and circulation of historical memory across borders. Based on the English-language literature of the 2000s—2020s, the author analyzes the emerging field of Transnational Memory studies from the point of view of the categorical apparatus, disciplinary features and research approaches. Having documented that discussions about the transcultural dimension of collective memory are present even in the works of the classics of Memory studies, the author shows that the efforts of their modern critics are driven by the attempts to conceptualize the memory of the Holocaust, World War II, colonialism and other events of the “difficult past”. The abundance of closely related concepts elaborated in recent years creates an illusion of competition in this field, but these concepts are often based on fundamentally different ideological and methodological settings, and if some of the concepts possess a certain empirical potential, others are completely normative. The author identifies six main research lenses within the current state of Transnational Memory studies — international, supranational, diasporic, mediatized, digital and, finally, global, associated with the problem of memory synchrony/simultaneity. At the same time, according to his conclusion, getting rid of the national perspective in understanding transnational memory is still far from complete, and the very fact that scientists look beyond borders indicates that such borders still exist.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":"63 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72447667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}