Introduction: the politics of public justification

References

• Abulof, U. (2015a). The malpractice of rationality in international relations. Rationality and Society, 27(3), 358–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abulof, U. (2015b). The mortality and morality of nations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Abulof, U. (2015c). Normative concepts analysis: Unpacking the language of legitimation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(1), 73–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abulof, U. (2016). We the peoples? The strange demise of self-determination. European Journal of International Relations. Advance online publication.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, J. C. (2003). The meanings of social life: A cultural sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alker, H. (2011). The powers and pathologies of networks: Insights from the political cybernetics of Karl W. Deutsch and Norbert Wiener. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 351–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansell, C. (1997). Symbolic networks: The realignment of the French working class 1887–1894. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 359–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aristoteles. (1995). Rhetorik (F. G. Sieveke, Trans. and Annotated). Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
   Google Scholar
• Banchoff, T., & Smith, M. P. (1999). Legitimacy and the European Union: The contested polity. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, R. S. (2001). Legitimating identities: The self-presentation of rulers and subjects. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.
   Google Scholar
• Beetham, D., & Lord, C. (2014). Legitimacy and the European Union. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Beiner, R. (1983). Political judgement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beland, D., & Cox, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Ideas and politics in social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bellah, R. N. (2011). Religion in human evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Belting, H. (1999). Identität im Zweifel: Ansichten der deutschen Kunst. Cologne: DuMont.
   Google Scholar
• Bénatouïl, T. (1999). A tale of two sociologies: The critical and the pragmatic stance in French contemporary sociology. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 379–396.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (1994). Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy. Constellations, 1(1), 26–52.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, R. (1991). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity⁄postmodernity. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, O. (1961). The re-discovery of the ‘topics’. Mind, LXX, 534–539.
   Google Scholar
• Bjola, C., & Kornprobst, M. (2011). Introduction: The argumentative deontology of global governance. In C. Bjola & M. Kornprobst (Eds.), Arguing global governance (pp. 1–16). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, R. (2000). Citizenship and political judgment: Between discourse ethics and phronesis. Res Publica, 6, 179–198.
   Google Scholar
• Blok, A. (2013). Pragmatic sociology as political ecology: On the many worths of nature(s). European Journal of Social Theory, 16(4), 492–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life (2nd Vintage Books ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2000). The reality of moral expectations: A sociology of situated judgement. Philosophical Explorations, 3(3), 208–231.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, J. A., & Seligson, M. A. (2009). The legitimacy puzzle in Latin America: Political support and democracy in eight nations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bremmer, I., & Roubini, N. (2011). A G-Zero world. Foreign Affairs, 90(2), 2–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bukovansky, M. (2002). Legitimacy and power politics: The American and French revolutions in international political culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cicero, M. T. (2003). Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Claude, I. L. (1966). Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations. International Organization, 20(3), 367–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, N. C. (2002). Argument and change in world politics: Ethics, decolonization, and humanitarian intervention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cromartie, A. (2003). Legitimacy. In R. Bellamy & A. Mason (Eds.), Political concepts (pp. 93–104). New York, NY: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Crosswhite, J. (2010). The new rhetoric project. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43(4), 301–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Agostino, F. (1996). Free public reason: Making it up as we go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellingson, S. (1995). Understanding the dialectic of discourse and collective action: Public debate and rioting in antebellum Cincinnati. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 100–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englebert, P. (2002). State legitimacy and development in Africa. New York, NY: Lynne Rienner.
   Google Scholar
• Feest, U. (2010). Historical perspectives on erklären and verstehen. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 29–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, D. (2004). Argumentation studies in the wake of the new rhetoric. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40, 267–283.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In A. D. Morris & C. McClurg Müller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, G. F. (2003). Contemporary theories of liberalism. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gause, F. G. (2011). Why Middle East studies missed the Arab Spring: The myth of authoritarian stability. Foreign Affairs, 90(4), 81–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelpi, C. (2003). The power of legitimacy: Assessing the role of norms in crisis bargaining. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harle, V. (1998). Ideas of social order in the ancient world. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2009). Power and justice. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 376–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hermand, J. (1991). Freiheit im Kalten Krieg: Zum Siegeszug der abstrakten Malerei in Westdeutschland. In H. Boger, E. Mai, & S. Waetzoldt (Eds.), 45 und die Folgen: Kunstgeschichte eines Wiederbeginns (pp. 135–162). Cologne: Böhlau.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, A. (2010). Dissolutions of the social: On the social theory of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. Constellations, 17(3), 376–389.
   Google Scholar
• Hurd, I. (2007). After anarchy: Legitimacy and power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hurrelmann, A. (2017). Empirical legitimation analysis in International Relations. How to learn from the insights – and avoid the mistakes – of research in EU Studies. Contemporary Politics, 23(1).
   Google Scholar
• Hurrelmann, A., Schneider, S., & Steffek, J. (2007). Introduction: Legitimacy in an age of global politics. In A. Hurrelmann, S. Schneider, & J. Steffek (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 1–16). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Jaspers, K. (1953). The origin and goal of history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaase, M., & Newton, K. (1995). Beliefs in government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 44(1), 83–105.
   Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M. (2011). The agent’s logics of action: Defining and mapping political judgement. International Theory, 3(1), 70–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M. (2014). From political judgements to public justifications (and vice versa): How communities generate reasons upon which to act. European Journal of International Relations, 20(1), 192–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornprobst, M., & Senn, M. (2016). A rhetorical field theory: Background, communication, and change. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(2), 300–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krebs, R. R., & Jackson, P. T. (2007). Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 35–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lake, D. A. (2009). Relational authority and legitimacy in international relations. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 331–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, H. (1997). Foreign policy and discourse analysis: France, Britain, and Europe. New York, NY: Routledge/LSE.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In M. I. Lichbach & A. S. Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 19–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1999). The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics, 22(1), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, L. (2007). Neoliberalism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theories: Discipline and diversity (pp. 109–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. (2000). Verstehen: The uses of understanding in social science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• McGee, M. C., & Nelson, J. S. (1985). Narrative reason in public argument. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 139–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of democracy and dictatorship. Boston, MA: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A. (2002). Reassessing legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), 603–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation ( J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct (1st ed.). New York, NY: W. Morrow.
   Google Scholar
• Quintilian. (1953). Institutio oratoria (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringmar, E. (2006). Inter-textual relations: The quarrel over the Iraq War as a conflict between narrative types. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(4), 403–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogowski, R. (1974). Rational legitimacy: A theory of political support. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rostbøll, C. F. (2009). Autonomy, respect, and arrogance in the Danish cartoon controversy. Political Theory, 37(5), 623–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandel, M. J. (2005). Public philosophy: Essays on morality in politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmied, W. (1995). Ausgangspunkt und Verwandlung. In C. M. Joachimides, N. Rosenthal, & W. Schmied (Eds.), Deutsche Kunst im 20. Jahrhundert: Malerei und Plastik 1905–1985 (pp. 63–71). Munich: Prestel-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, A. (1982). Collected papers. Boston, MA: Hingham.
   Google Scholar
• Schweller, R. L. (2014). Maxwell’s demon and the golden apple global discord in the new millennium. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. J. (1972). Game theory and the evolution of fighting. In On evolution (pp. 8–28). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprague, R. K. (1972). The older Sophists. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steffek, J. (2007). Legitimacy in international relations: From state compliance to citizen consensus. In A. Hurrelmann, S. Schneider, & J. Steffek (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 175–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Thévenot, L. (2007). The plurality of cognitive formats and engagements moving between the familiar and the public. European Journal of Social Theory, 10(3), 409–423.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–370). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation, 14, 293–305.
   Google Scholar
• Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, P. (1999). After justification: Repertoires of evaluation and the sociology of modernity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 341–357.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Webley.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1922/1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (2 Vols.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1926/1992). Politik als Beruf. Stuttgart: Reclam.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wellmer, A. (1999). Ethik und Dialog: Elemente des moralischen Urteils bei Kant und in der Diskursethik. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. (2005). In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. H., & Kubal, T. J. (1999). Movement frames and the cultural environment: Resonance, failure, and the boundaries of the legitimate. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts & Change, 21, 225–248.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 38–53). New York, NY: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis: Introducing qualitative methods (pp. 1–33). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar