Recent debates in political theory display a renewed interest in the problem of judgment. This article critically examines the different senses of judgment that are at play in Jürgen Habermas’ theory of law. The article offers (1) a new critical reading of Habermas’ account of the legitimacy of law, and (2) a revisionary interpretation of the reconstructive approach to political theory that underpins it. Both of these are instrumental to (3) an understanding of what is involved in judging the legitimacy of law that is richer than has been recognized thus far by both critics and defenders of Habermas.
AndersonBenedict (2006) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso.
2.
ApelKarl-Otto (2002) ‘Regarding the Relationship of Morality, Law and Democracy: On Habermas’s Philosophy of Law (1992) from a Transcendental-Pragmatic Point of View’, in AboulafiaMitchellBookmanMyraKempCatherine (eds) Habermas and Pragmatism. London: Routledge, pp. 17–30.
3.
ArendtHannah (1989) Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
AzmanovaAlbena (2012) The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.
5.
BaxterHugh (2011) Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, Law Books.
6.
BaynesKenneth (1995) ‘Democracy and the Rechtsstaat: Habermas’s Faktizität Und Geltung’, in WhiteStephen K. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–32.
7.
BourkeRichardGeussRaymond (2009) Political Judgement: Essays for John Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BrandomRobert (2002) Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
CroninCiaran (2006) ‘On the Possibility of a Democratic Constitutional Founding: Habermas and Michelman in Dialogue’, Ratio Juris19(3): 343–69; accessible @: doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2006.00334.x
10.
FerraraAlessandro (2001) ‘Of Boats and Principles: Reflections on Habermas’s “Constitutional Democracy”’, Political Theory29(6): 782–91; accessible @: doi:10.2307/3072602
11.
FerraraAlessandro (2008) The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.
12.
FrankJason (2010) Constituent Moments: Enacting the People in Postrevolutionary America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
13.
GausDaniel (2013) ‘Rational Reconstruction as a Method of Political Theory between Social Critique and Empirical Political Science’, Constellations20(4): 553–70; accessible @: doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12064
14.
HabermasJürgen (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, trans. McCarthyT., vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
15.
HabermasJürgen (1985) ‘Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology30: 95–116.
16.
HabermasJürgen (1990) ‘Reconstruction and Interpretation in the Social Sciences’, in his Moral Consciousness and Communicative ActionCambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21– 42.
17.
HabermasJürgen (1994) Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
HabermasJürgen (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. RehgW.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
HabermasJürgen (1998a) ‘What Is Universal Pragmatics?’, in CookeMaeve (ed.) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–104.
20.
HabermasJürgen (1998b) ‘On the Relation between the Nation, the Rule of Law, and Democracy’, in his The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 129–53.
21.
HabermasJürgen (1998c) ‘On the Distinction between Poetic and Communicative Uses of Language’, in CookeMaeve (ed.) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 383–402.
22.
HabermasJürgen (2001) ‘Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?’, Political Theory29(6): 766–81.
23.
HabermasJürgen (2003) ‘On Law and Disagreement. Some Comments on “Interpretative Pluralism”’, Ratio Juris16(2): 187–94.
24.
HabermasJürgenFerryJean-Marc (1996) ‘Jürgen Habermas Interviewed by Jean-Marc Ferry: The Limits of Neo-Historicism’ (trans. MeyerS.), Philosophy & Social Criticism22(3): 1–8; accessible @: doi:10.1177/019145379602200301
25.
HonigBonnie (2001) ‘Dead Rights, Live Futures: A Reply to Habermas’s “Constitutional Democracy”’, Political Theory29(6): 792–805; accessible @: doi:10.2307/3072603
26.
HonigBonnie (2007) ‘Between Decision and Deliberation: Political Paradox in Democratic Theory’, American Political Science Review101(1): 1–17.
KantImmanuel (2009) The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. GregorMary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MarkellPatchen (1997) ‘Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere’, Constellations3(3): 377–400.
30.
MarkellPatchen (2000) ‘Making Affect Safe for Democracy?: On “Constitutional Patriotism”’, Political Theory28(1): 38–63.
31.
McCarthyThomas (1978) The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
McCarthyThomas (1996) ‘Legitimacy and Diversity: Dialectical Reflections on Analytical Distinctions’, Cardozo Law Review17: 1083–125.
33.
MeckstrothChristopher (2009) ‘The Struggle for Democracy: Paradox and History in Democratic Progress’, Constellations16(3): 410–28.
34.
NäsströmSofia (2007) ‘The Legitimacy of the People’, Political Theory35(5): 624–58.
35.
NorvalAletta J. (2007) Aversive Democracy: Inheritance and Originality in the Democratic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
OlsonKevin (2003) ‘Do Rights Have a Formal Basis? Habermas’ Legal Theory and the Normative Foundations of the Law’, Journal of Political Philosophy11(3): 273–94.
37.
OlsonKevin (2007) ‘Paradoxes of Constitutional Democracy’, American Journal of Political Science51(2): 330–43.
38.
OwenDavid (2003) ‘Genealogy as Perspicuous Representation’, in HeyesCressida J. (ed.) The Grammar of Politics: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 82–96.
39.
PatbergMarkus (2014) ‘Supranational Constitutional Politics and the Method of Rational Reconstruction’, Philosophy & Social Criticism40(6): 501–21; accessible @: doi:10.1177/0191453714530987
40.
PedersenJørgen (2008) ‘Habermas’ Method: Rational Reconstruction’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences38(4): 457–86; accessible @: doi:10.1177/0048393108319024
41.
PedersenJørgen (2009) ‘Habermas and the Political Sciences The Relationship between Theory and Practice’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences39(3): 381–407; accessible @: doi:10.1177/0048393108329796
42.
PetersBernhard (1994) ‘On Reconstructive Legal and Political Theory’, Philosophy & Social Criticism20(4): 101–34; accessible @: doi:10.1177/019145379402000405
43.
PhilpMark (2010) ‘What Is to Be Done? Political Theory and Political Realism’, European Journal of Political Theory9(4): 466–84; accessible @: doi:10.1177/1474885110374010
44.
RehgWilliamBohmanJames (1996) ‘Discourse and Democracy: The Formal and Informal Bases of Legitimacy in Habermas’ Faktizität Und Geltung’, Journal of Political Philosophy4(1): 79–99.
45.
RummensStefan (2006) ‘Debate: The Co-Originality of Private and Public Autonomy in Deliberative Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy14(4): 469–81.
46.
SchaapAndrew (2009) Law and Agonistic Politics. Farnham, Sy: Ashgate.
47.
ShapiroScott J. (2006) “What Is the Internal Point of View?”, Fordham Law Review75: 1157–70.
48.
SpecterMatthew G. (2010) Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ThieleLeslie Paul (2005) ‘Judging Hannah Arendt: A Reply to Zerilli’, Political Theory33(5): 706–14.
50.
Van den BrinkBert (2012) ‘Pictures of Politics: Deliberative and Other Aspects of Democracy’, Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie98(3): 396–410.
51.
WhiteStephen K.FarrEvan Robert (2012) ‘“No-Saying” in Habermas’, Political Theory40(1): 32–57; accessible @: doi:10.1177/0090591711426854
52.
YatesMelissa (2011) ‘Postmetaphysical Thinking’, in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. FultnerBarbara. Durham, NC: Acumen, pp. 35–53.
53.
ZerilliLinda M. G. (2005) ‘“We Feel Our Freedom”: Imagination and Judgment in the Thought of Hannah Arendt’, Political Theory33(2): 158–88.
54.
ZerilliLinda M. G. (2012) ‘Value Pluralism and the Problem of Judgment: Farewell to Public Reason’, Political Theory40(1): 6–31; accessible @: doi:10.1177/0090591711426853
