结算的成就

Levy O’Flynn.
{"title":"结算的成就","authors":"Levy O’Flynn.","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198867036.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the first of two principal rationales supporting the use of peace referendums, namely settlement achievement. The chapter starts by locating the argument of the book in the public reason tradition, and specifically in the work of John Rawls. The chapter identifies how public values often feature in crucial, if generally under-appreciated, ways in peace agreements—not just as lofty aspirations but as powerful normative constraints on the content of particular constitutional clauses. The chapter then defends the claim that non-elites may be as, or even more, adept than some classes of elites (such as governmental, ethnic, or secessionist leaders) at deliberating about those values. We accept that constitutional settlements often contain a great deal of institutional detail; and we also accept that elites are usually better placed to deliberate about that detail. Yet we explain why the comparative advantage may rest with non-elites when it comes to deliberating about general public values. All of this is contingent on robust deliberative institutional supports being in place, both through the course of the referendum campaign and at the final vote.","PeriodicalId":103014,"journal":{"name":"Deliberative Peace Referendums","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Settlement Achievement\",\"authors\":\"Levy O’Flynn.\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198867036.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter focuses on the first of two principal rationales supporting the use of peace referendums, namely settlement achievement. The chapter starts by locating the argument of the book in the public reason tradition, and specifically in the work of John Rawls. The chapter identifies how public values often feature in crucial, if generally under-appreciated, ways in peace agreements—not just as lofty aspirations but as powerful normative constraints on the content of particular constitutional clauses. The chapter then defends the claim that non-elites may be as, or even more, adept than some classes of elites (such as governmental, ethnic, or secessionist leaders) at deliberating about those values. We accept that constitutional settlements often contain a great deal of institutional detail; and we also accept that elites are usually better placed to deliberate about that detail. Yet we explain why the comparative advantage may rest with non-elites when it comes to deliberating about general public values. All of this is contingent on robust deliberative institutional supports being in place, both through the course of the referendum campaign and at the final vote.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Deliberative Peace Referendums\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Deliberative Peace Referendums\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867036.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deliberative Peace Referendums","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867036.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章着重讨论支持使用和平全民投票的两个主要理由中的第一个,即实现解决。这一章首先从公共理性传统,特别是约翰·罗尔斯的著作中,来定位这本书的论点。这一章指出,公共价值在和平协议中往往发挥着至关重要的作用,尽管它们通常没有得到充分的重视——不仅是崇高的愿望,而且是对特定宪法条款内容的强有力的规范约束。然后,本章为非精英阶层在思考这些价值观方面可能与某些精英阶层(如政府、种族或分离主义领导人)一样,甚至比他们更熟练的说法进行了辩护。我们承认,宪法解决方案往往包含大量的制度细节;我们也承认,精英们通常更有能力考虑这些细节。然而,我们解释了为什么在考虑一般公共价值观时,比较优势可能落在非精英身上。所有这一切都取决于在全民公决宣传过程中以及在最后投票时是否有强有力的审议机构支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Settlement Achievement
This chapter focuses on the first of two principal rationales supporting the use of peace referendums, namely settlement achievement. The chapter starts by locating the argument of the book in the public reason tradition, and specifically in the work of John Rawls. The chapter identifies how public values often feature in crucial, if generally under-appreciated, ways in peace agreements—not just as lofty aspirations but as powerful normative constraints on the content of particular constitutional clauses. The chapter then defends the claim that non-elites may be as, or even more, adept than some classes of elites (such as governmental, ethnic, or secessionist leaders) at deliberating about those values. We accept that constitutional settlements often contain a great deal of institutional detail; and we also accept that elites are usually better placed to deliberate about that detail. Yet we explain why the comparative advantage may rest with non-elites when it comes to deliberating about general public values. All of this is contingent on robust deliberative institutional supports being in place, both through the course of the referendum campaign and at the final vote.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信