Global democracy and feasibility

References

• Abizadeh, A. (2012). On the demos and its kin: Nationalism, democracy, and the boundary problem. American Political Science Review, 106, 867–882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, C., & Valentini, L. (2009). Egalitarian challenges to global egalitarianism: A critique. Review of International Studies, 35, 485–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beitz, C. (2014). Internal and external. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44, 225–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besson, S., & Martí, J. L. (in press). Legitimate actors of international law-making: Toward a theory of international democratic representation. Jurisprudence. doi:10.1080/20403313.2018.1442256
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across borders. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. (2013). The heart of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2006). The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20, 405–437.
   Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. (2015). Climate change and state consent. Working Paper. Retrieved September 20, 2017, from www.u.arizona.edu/~thomasc/Climate%20Change%20and%20State%20Consent.docx
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. A. (2003). Facts and Principles. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31, 211–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. A. (2009). Why not socialism?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1999). Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s edges (pp. 19–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102, 481–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erman, E., & Möller, N. (2013). Three failed charges against ideal theory. Social Theory & Practice, 39(1), 19–44.
   Google Scholar
• Erman, E, & Möller, N. (2018). The practical turn in political theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erman, E, & Möller, N. (2019). A world of possibilities: the place of feasibility in political theory. Res Publica (Online First).
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. (2011). Human nature and the limits (If Any) of political philosophy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39, 207–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. (2014). Utopophobia. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 42, 113–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrelly, C. (2007). Justice in ideal theory: A refutation. Political Studies, 55, 844–864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gheaus, A. (2013). The feasibility constraint on the concept of justice. The Philosophical Quarterly, 63, 445–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilabert, P., & Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). Political feasibility: A conceptual exploration. Political Studies, 60, 809–825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99, 29–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J. F. (2013). Rethinking private authority: agents and entrepreneurs in global environmental governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. Review of International Organizations, 10, 305–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O., Macedo, S., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Democracy-enhancing multilateralism. International Organization, 63, 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawford-Smith, Holly. (2013). Understanding political feasibility. The Journal Of Political Philosophy, 21, 243–259. doi:10.1111/jopp.2013.21.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdonald, T. (2008). Global stakeholder democracy: Power and representation beyond liberal states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (2010). Against Global Democracy. In K. Breen & S. O’Neill (Eds.), After the nation: Critical reflections on post-nationalism (pp. 141–160). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, C. (2005). ‘Ideal Theory’ as ideology. Hypatia, 20, 165–184.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A. (2004). Is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in world politics? A framework for analysis. Government and Opposition, 39, 336–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, D. (2012). Constituting the polity, constituting the demos. Ethics & Global Politics, 5, 129–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Räikkä, J. (1998). The feasibility condition in political theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 27–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ronzoni, M. (2009). The global order: A case of background injustice? A practice-dependent account. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37, 229–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangiovanni, A. (2008). Justice and the priority of politics to morality. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16, 137–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidtz, D. (2011). Nonideal theory: What it is and what it needs to be. Ethics, 121, 772–796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte, J. A. (2014). Reinventing global democracy. European Journal of International Relations, 20, 3–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, J. (2010). Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38, 5–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southwood, N. (2016). Does ‘ought’ imply ‘feasible’? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 44, 7–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southwood, N., & Wiens, D. (2016). Actual’ does not imply ‘feasible. Philosophical Studies, 173, 3037–3060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffek, J. (2013). Explaining cooperation between IGOs and NGOs–push factors, pull factors, and the policy cycle. Review of International Studies, 39, 993–1013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., & Squatrito, T. (2016). Democratic memberships in international organizations: sources of institutional design. The Review of International Organizations, 11, 59–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2013). The opening up of international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ulaş, L. (2016). Doing things by halves: On intermediary global institutional proposals. Ethics & Global Politics, 9, 30223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7, 654–664.
   Google Scholar
• Valentini, L. (2014). No global demos, no global democracy? A systematization and critique. Perspectives on Politics, 20, 789–807.
   Google Scholar
• Wiens, D. (2015). Political ideals and the feasibility frontier. Economics and Philosophy, 31, 447–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar