Has the globalization of public law, that claims to be guided by basic commitments to human rights, democracy andthe rule of law, helped to realize the emancipatory potential of the constitutionalist tradition? Or has constitutionalist rhetoric merely legitimated new or helped to cover up old forms of repression? Furthermore, what role is there for legal scholarship that is critically guided by basic constitutionalist principles? As a practice that draws on the internal reflexivity of the law, to what extent might global constitutionalism serve as a framework for a critical theory of law?
"Legitimacy, Democracy and Justice: On the Reflexivity of Normative Orders” [draft]
by Rainer Forst (Goethe University, Frankfurt)
Commentators: Seyla Benhabib (Yale), Mattias Kumm (Berlin/New York)
"New Border and Citizenship Constellations: Implications for Law and Justice”
by Ayelet Shachar (Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen)
Commentators: Christoph Möllers (Berlin), Peter Niesen (Hamburg)
"Democracy Under Siege – Global Constitutionalization as Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere: the European Case"
by Hauke Brunkhorst (University of Flensburg)
Commentators: Cristina Lafont (Evanston), Antje Wiener (Hamburg)
"On Political and Pathological Self-Determination"
by Alexander Somek (University of Vienna)
Commentators: Richard Bellamy (Florence), Christopher McCrudden (Belfast/Michigan)