Tracking justice democratically

References

• Ackerman, Bruce. 1980. Social Justice in the Liberal State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1–2): 8–22.10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
   Google Scholar
• Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. 2001. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerpen: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, Brian. 1991. “Is Democracy Special?” In Democracy and Power, edited by Brian Barry, 24–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baynes, Kenneth. 2009. “Discourse Ethics and the Political Conception of Human Rights.” Ethics and Global Politics 2 (1): 1–21.10.3402/egp.v2i1.1938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beitz, Charles R. 1989. Political Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beitz, Charles R. 2009. The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572458.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, Richard. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defense of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511490187
   Google Scholar
• Benvenisti, Eyal. 1999. “Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards.” International Law and Politics 31: 843–854.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, James. 1998. “The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (4): 400–425.10.1111/1467-9760.00061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone. 2017. “Balancing Epistemic Quality and Equal Participation in a System Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology. doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, Thomas. 2011. “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2): 142–176.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01204.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97: 26–38.10.1086/292815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg, 67–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 2004. “Minimalism about Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope for?” Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2): 190–213. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00197.x.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, Jules, and John Ferejohn. 1986. “Democracy and Social Choice.” Ethics 97: 11–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 1950. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as Amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14. Entry into Force 3 September 1953. In ETS 5; 213 UNTS 221.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, Jon, ed. 1998a. Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139175005
   Google Scholar
• Elster, Jon. 1998b. “Introduction.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, Jon. 2003. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Philosophy and Democracy, edited by Thomas Christiano, 138–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Original Edition, In Elster and Hylland 1986, 103–132.
   Google Scholar
• Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen, Erik Oddvar. 2000. “Deliberative Supranationalism in the EU.” In Democracy in the European Union: Integration Through Deliberation? edited by Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum, 42–64. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2009. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831548
   Google Scholar
• Follesdal, Andreas. 2006. “The Value Added of Theories of Deliberative Democracy: Where (Not) to Look.” In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí, 57–72. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Follesdal, Andreas. 2009. “Why the European Court on Human Rights Might Be Democratically Legitimate—A Modest Defense.” Nordic Journal of Human Rights 27 (2): 289–303.
   Google Scholar
• Follesdal, Andreas. 2011. “The Legitimacy Challenges for New Modes of Governance: Trustworthy Responsiveness.” Government and Opposition. 46 (1): 81–100. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2010.01331.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Follesdal, Andreas. 2014. Legitimacy Challenges and What to Do about Them—Accountability and Authority of the European Court of Human Rights. In Proceedings of Conference on the Long-term Future of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• Follesdal, Andreas, and Simon Hix. 2006. “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik.” Journal of Common Market Studies. 44 (3): 533–562.10.1111/jcms.2006.44.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fretté v. France. 2002. 38 EHRR 438. European Court on Human Rights.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert. 2004. “Input Democracy.” In Power and Democracy: Critical Interventions, edited by Fredrik Engelstad and Øivind Østerud, 79–100. Oslo: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1993. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• HRLJ (Human Rights Law Journal). 1998. “The Doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation under the European Convention on Human Rights: Its Legitimacy in Theory and Application in Practice—Special Issue.” Human Rights Law Journal 19 (1): 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Kydd, Andrew H. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, Margaret. 1998. Consent, Dissent and Patriotism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindheim and others v. Norway [Tomtefestesaeen]. 2012. Series B 13221/08. ECtHR.
   Google Scholar
• List, Christian, and Robert Goodin. 2001. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy. 9: 277–306.10.1111/jopp.2001.9.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. Duncan, and Howard Raiffa. 1957. Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Madison, James. [1787] 1961. The Federalist No. 10. Original edition, 1787. New York: Mentor.
   Google Scholar
• Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15: 338–368.10.1177/0090591787015003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, Ebeling. 2017. “Is Moral Deference Reasonably Acceptable?” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 296–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, John Stuart. [1861] 1958. Considerations on Representative Government. New York: Liberal Arts Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, John Stuart. [1873] 1969. Autobiography. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, John Stuart. 1859. Thought on Parliamentary Reform. London: John W Parker and Son West Strand.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. “The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe.” International Organization 54 (2): 217–252.10.1162/002081800551163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettit, Philip. 2000. “Democracy: Electoral and Contestatory.” In Designing Democratic Institutions, edited by Ian Shapiro and Stephen Macedo, 104–144. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Przeworski, Adam. 1998. “Deliberation and Ideological Domination.” In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster, 140–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139175005
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Santoro, Daniele, and Federica Liveriero. 2017. “Proceduralism and the Epistemic Dilemma of Supreme Courts.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 310–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, Amartya K. 1982. “Behaviour and the Concept of Preference.” In Choice, Welfare and Measurement, edited by A. K. Sen, 54–73. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, Ian. 1996. Democracy’s Place. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Michael. 1987. The Possibility of Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1998. “Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 335–355.10.1111/1467-9760.00058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621987
   Google Scholar
• Weale, Albert. 1999. Democracy. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, Iris Marion. 1997. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy, edited by I. M. Young, 60–74. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar