Compromise, pluralism, and deliberation

References

• Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference. Compromise and integrity in ethics and politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882939
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 67–91). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dummett, M. (1997). Principles of electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ebeling, M. (2016). Conciliatory democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. (2008). Innovating democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400826339
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2012). The spirit of compromise. Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margalit, A. (2009). On compromise and rotten compromises. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831210
   Google Scholar
• McCabe, D. (2010). Modus vivendi liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750359
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674969827
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Okin, S. M. (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019929111X.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. (2012). Democracy and public space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199214563.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64, 765–807.10.2307/1600311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, E. (2010). Modus vivendi, consensus, and (realist) liberal legitimacy. Public Reason, 2, 21–39.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, E. (2013). Consensus, compromise, justice and legitimacy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16, 557–572.10.1080/13698230.2013.810393
   Google Scholar
• Rouméas, É. (2016). Une défense du compromis ( PhD thesis). École doctorale de Sciences Po, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. B. (2010). The disenchantment of secular discourse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (1995). Incompletely theorized agreements. Harvard Law Review, 108, 1733–1772.10.2307/1341816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (1999). Law and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262138.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (2016). Political political theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674970342
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (1994). The justification of political liberalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 75, 165–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (1999). Building trust in divided societies. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7, 287–307.10.1111/1467-9760.00078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (2000). Saving democracy from deliberation. In R. Beiner & W. Norman (Eds.), Canadian political philosophy (pp. 78–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (2006). A neutral conception of reasonableness? Episteme, 3, 234–247.10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.234
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (2013). On the possibility of principled moral compromise. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16, 537–556.10.1080/13698230.2013.810392
   Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (2014). Conscientious refusal and health professionals: Does religion make a difference? Bioethics, 28, 8–15.10.1111/bioe.12059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, D. (2015). Sites of deliberation in contemporary electoral systems: On the deliberative defense of some unfashionable institutions. Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law, 9, 291–306.
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, F. (2016). Compromise, peace and public justification. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-28877-2
   Google Scholar
• Wolkenstein, F. (2016). A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24, 297–320.10.1111/jopp.2016.24.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar