Democracia global con atajos

En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible...

Full description

Autores:
Kristan, M. Victoria
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2023
Institución:
Universidad Externado de Colombia
Repositorio:
Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/25497
Acceso en línea:
https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/25497
https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07
Palabra clave:
Democratic participation,
shortcuts,
shortcuts as substitutes,
blind deference
Participación democrática,
atajos,
atajos sustitutivos,
deferencia ciega
Rights
openAccess
License
M. Victoria Kristan - 2023
id uexternad2_dc464c1f01cca2c7b6f3fecdc6923cf1
oai_identifier_str oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/25497
network_acronym_str uexternad2
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Democracia global con atajos
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv Global Democracy with Shortcuts
title Democracia global con atajos
spellingShingle Democracia global con atajos
Democratic participation,
shortcuts,
shortcuts as substitutes,
blind deference
Participación democrática,
atajos,
atajos sustitutivos,
deferencia ciega
title_short Democracia global con atajos
title_full Democracia global con atajos
title_fullStr Democracia global con atajos
title_full_unstemmed Democracia global con atajos
title_sort Democracia global con atajos
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Kristan, M. Victoria
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv Kristan, M. Victoria
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Democratic participation,
shortcuts,
shortcuts as substitutes,
blind deference
topic Democratic participation,
shortcuts,
shortcuts as substitutes,
blind deference
Participación democrática,
atajos,
atajos sustitutivos,
deferencia ciega
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv Participación democrática,
atajos,
atajos sustitutivos,
deferencia ciega
description En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible con el ideal de autogobierno, pues bajo condiciones de deferencia ciega la sociedad carece de mecanismos para controlar e impugnar las decisiones políticas que la coaccionan. En este trabajo sostendré que si bien Lafont mantiene que los mini-públicos y otras innovaciones democráticas nos conducen de la deferencia a la deferencia ciega, y nos alejan del ideal democrático de autogobierno, esto no es así, o mejor dicho, depende del contexto. En algunos contextos los mini-públicos y otras herramientas de innovación democrática hacen la deferencia menos ciega de cuanto lo es efectivamente. Uno de esos contextos es el de la toma de decisiones sobre los asuntos globales, ya que no tenemos ningún sistema democrático de toma de esas decisiones. Para fundar mi objeción explicaré que, si aceptamos la tradicional distinción entre la concepción ideal y no-ideal de democracia, así como también la distinción entre estado de cosas como fin (como objetivo) y una teoría de transición, podemos también aceptar una serie de atajos, los atajos sustitutivos: aquellos destinados a resolver problemas de índole práctica identificados con la concepción no-ideal de la democracia, en nuestro caso, problemas prácticos globales.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2023-03-22T10:51:03Z
2025-04-09T17:54:58Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2023-03-22T10:51:03Z
2025-04-09T17:54:58Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2023-03-22
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.18601/01229893.n55.07
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv 2346-2051
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 0122-9893
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/25497
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07
identifier_str_mv 10.18601/01229893.n55.07
2346-2051
0122-9893
url https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/25497
https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13965
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13966
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13985
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv Núm. 55 , Año 2023 : Edición Especial
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv 123
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv 55
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv 105
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv Revista Derecho del Estado
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv Alsina, V. y Martí, J. L. The Birth of the CrowdLaw Movement: Tech-Based Citizen Participation, Legitimacy and the Quality of Lawmaking. En Analyse & Kritik. 40(2), 2018, 337-358.
Alter, K. J. y Lafont, C. Global Governance and the Problem of the Second Best: The Example of Reforming the World Trade Organization (2019). Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-13. Disponible en: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3524325 y http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3524325
Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy. En Cicchelli, V. y Mesure, S. (eds.), Cosmopolitanism in Hard Times. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Boston: Brill, 2021.
Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy: A Restatement. En Cambridge Journal of Education. 42(1), 2012, 9-20.
Archibugi, D. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Besson, S. Sovereignty, International Law and Democracy. En European Journal of International Law. 22(2), 2011, 373-387.
Bohman, J. International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions. En International Affairs. 75(3), 1999, 499-513.
Buchanan, A. y Keohane, R. O. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. En Ethics & International Affairs. 20(4), 2006, 405-437.
Christiano, T. Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions. En Besson, S. y Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Dahl, R. A. A Democratic Paradox? En Political Science Quarterly. 115(1), 2000, 35-40.
Dalton, R. J.; Cain, B. E. y Scarrow, S. E. Democratic Publics and Democratic Institutions. En Cain, B. E.; Dalton, R. J. y Scarrow, S. E. (eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 2003, 250-275.
Dryzek, J. Transnational Democracy. En Journal of Political Philosophy. (7)1, 1999, 30-51.
Farrell, M. Enseñando ética. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo, 2015.
Geißel, B. Introduction, On the Evaluation of Participatory Innovations. En Geißel, B. y Joas, M. (eds.), Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy? Opladen - Berlin - Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2013, 9-32.
Goodin, R. Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference. En Journal of Deliberative Democracy. 16(2), 2020, 25-32. doi: 10.16997/jdd.393.
Goodin, R. E. y Dryzek, J. S. Making Use of Mini-Publics. En Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon, 1975.
Habermas, J. The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society. En Constellations. 15(4), 2008, 444-455.
Held, D. Principles of Cosmopolitan Order. En Held, D. y Wallace, G. (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge: Polity, 2010.
Held, D. Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order. En Millennium. 37(3), 2009, 535-547.
Kristan, M. V. Sovereign Schliberties, Where Pettit’s International Protection of Individual Freedom Falls Short. En Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. (46), 2022. doi: 10.4000/revus.8100.
Kristan, M. V. The Game of Global Domination. Tesis doctoral: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2021.
Lafont, C. Democracia sin atajos. Una concepción participativa de la democracia deliberativa. Madrid: Trotta, 2021.
Lafont, C. Innovaciones democráticas y la amenaza del tecnopopulismo. En Revista de las Cortes Generales. (1)112, 2022, 45-61.
Magaña, P. The Political Representation of Nonhuman Animals. En Social Theory and Practice, 2022. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract2022811171.
Maisley, N. El derecho de la sociedad civil a participar en la creación del derecho internacional. Tesis doctoral: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2019.
Martí, J. L. A Global Republic to Prevent Global Domination. En Diacrítica. Revista do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho. 24(2), 2010, 31-72.
Martí, J. L. Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law. En D’Aspremont, J.; Besson, S. y Knuchel, S. (eds.), Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 724-748.
Martí, J. L. Política y bien común global. En C. Espósito y F. Garcimartín (eds.), La protección de bienes jurídicos globales, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Vol. 16, 2012, 17-37.
Martí, J. L. The Role of New Technologies in Deliberative Democracy. En Amato, G.; Barbisan, B. y Pinelli, C. (eds.), Rule of Law v. Majoritarian Democracy. London: Hart, 2021.
Nanz, P. y Steffek, J. Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere. En Government and Opposition. 39(2), 2004, 314-335.
Nino, C. S. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1996.
Peters, A. Are We Moving Towards Constitutionalization of the World Community? En Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-135.
Peters, A. Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures. En Leiden Journal of International Law. 19(3), 2006, 579-610.
Peters, A. Dual Democracy. En Klabbers, J.; Peters, A. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.), The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 263-341.
Pettit, P. A Republican Law of Peoples. En European Journal of Political Theory. 9(1), 2010, 70-94.
Pettit, P. Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2014.
Pettit, P. On the People’s Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Pettit, P. Republicanismo. Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno. Barcelona: Paidós, 1999.
Pettit, P. The Globalized Republican Ideal. En Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. 9(1), 2016, 48-68.
Pettit, P. The Republican Law of Peoples: A Restatement. En Buckinx, B.; Trejo-Mathys, J. y Waligore, T. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives. Oxford: Routledge, 2015, 49-82.
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
Rawls, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Sen, A. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2009.
Simmons, A. J. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Philosophy & Public Affairs. 38(1), 2010, 5-36.
Slaughter, A. M. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 2017.
Smith, G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Stemplowska, Z. What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory? En Social Theory and Practice. (34)3, 2008, 319-340.
Stemplowska, Z. y Swift, A. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Estlund, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 373-389.
Valentini, L. Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. En Philosophy Compass. 7(9), 2012, 654-664.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv M. Victoria Kristan - 2023
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
rights_invalid_str_mv M. Victoria Kristan - 2023
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
text/xml
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Departamento de Derecho Constitucional
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8593
institution Universidad Externado de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/2ecce7f7-78d7-49c2-9997-5451d8f4bfa1/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 251806c57bd13a2d115668111c16d008
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv metabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org
_version_ 1831928468731854848
spelling Kristan, M. Victoria2023-03-22T10:51:03Z2025-04-09T17:54:58Z2023-03-22T10:51:03Z2025-04-09T17:54:58Z2023-03-22En su libro, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont parte de tres concepciones de la democracia aparentemente controvertidas, a saber: puramente epistémica, profundamente pluralista y lotocrática. Las tres concepciones alternativas, según la autora, conducen a la deferencia ciega que es incompatible con el ideal de autogobierno, pues bajo condiciones de deferencia ciega la sociedad carece de mecanismos para controlar e impugnar las decisiones políticas que la coaccionan. En este trabajo sostendré que si bien Lafont mantiene que los mini-públicos y otras innovaciones democráticas nos conducen de la deferencia a la deferencia ciega, y nos alejan del ideal democrático de autogobierno, esto no es así, o mejor dicho, depende del contexto. En algunos contextos los mini-públicos y otras herramientas de innovación democrática hacen la deferencia menos ciega de cuanto lo es efectivamente. Uno de esos contextos es el de la toma de decisiones sobre los asuntos globales, ya que no tenemos ningún sistema democrático de toma de esas decisiones. Para fundar mi objeción explicaré que, si aceptamos la tradicional distinción entre la concepción ideal y no-ideal de democracia, así como también la distinción entre estado de cosas como fin (como objetivo) y una teoría de transición, podemos también aceptar una serie de atajos, los atajos sustitutivos: aquellos destinados a resolver problemas de índole práctica identificados con la concepción no-ideal de la democracia, en nuestro caso, problemas prácticos globales.In her book, Democracia sin atajos, Cristina Lafont starts from three seemingly contested conceptions of democracy, namely: purely epistemic, deeply pluralistic and lottocratic. All three alternative conceptions, according to Lafont, lead to blind deference, which is incompatible with the ideal of self-government, since under conditions of blind deference, society lacks the mechanisms to control and challenge political decisions that coerce it. In this paper, I will argue that while Lafont claims that mini-publics and other democratic innovations lead us from deference to blind deference and away from the democratic ideal of self-government, this is not the case, or rather, it depends on the context. In some contexts, mini-publics and other instruments of democratic innovation make deference less blind than it actually is. One such context is the context of decision-making in global affairs, since we do not have a global democratic system to make such decisions. To support my objection, I will explain that if we accept the traditional distinction between the ideal and non-ideal conceptions of democracy, and the distinction between end-state vs. transitional theory, we can also accept a series of shortcuts, the substitute shortcuts: those aimed at solving practical problems identified with the non-ideal conception of democracy, in our case practical global problems.application/pdftext/htmltext/xml10.18601/01229893.n55.072346-20510122-9893https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/25497https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.07spaDepartamento de Derecho Constitucionalhttps://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13965https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13966https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/8593/13985Núm. 55 , Año 2023 : Edición Especial12355105Revista Derecho del EstadoAlsina, V. y Martí, J. L. The Birth of the CrowdLaw Movement: Tech-Based Citizen Participation, Legitimacy and the Quality of Lawmaking. En Analyse & Kritik. 40(2), 2018, 337-358.Alter, K. J. y Lafont, C. Global Governance and the Problem of the Second Best: The Example of Reforming the World Trade Organization (2019). Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-13. Disponible en: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3524325 y http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3524325Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy. En Cicchelli, V. y Mesure, S. (eds.), Cosmopolitanism in Hard Times. International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology. Boston: Brill, 2021.Archibugi, D. Cosmopolitan Democracy: A Restatement. En Cambridge Journal of Education. 42(1), 2012, 9-20.Archibugi, D. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.Besson, S. Sovereignty, International Law and Democracy. En European Journal of International Law. 22(2), 2011, 373-387.Bohman, J. International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions. En International Affairs. 75(3), 1999, 499-513.Buchanan, A. y Keohane, R. O. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. En Ethics & International Affairs. 20(4), 2006, 405-437.Christiano, T. Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions. En Besson, S. y Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Dahl, R. A. A Democratic Paradox? En Political Science Quarterly. 115(1), 2000, 35-40.Dalton, R. J.; Cain, B. E. y Scarrow, S. E. Democratic Publics and Democratic Institutions. En Cain, B. E.; Dalton, R. J. y Scarrow, S. E. (eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. 2003, 250-275.Dryzek, J. Transnational Democracy. En Journal of Political Philosophy. (7)1, 1999, 30-51.Farrell, M. Enseñando ética. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo, 2015.Geißel, B. Introduction, On the Evaluation of Participatory Innovations. En Geißel, B. y Joas, M. (eds.), Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy? Opladen - Berlin - Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2013, 9-32.Goodin, R. Between Full Endorsement and Blind Deference. En Journal of Deliberative Democracy. 16(2), 2020, 25-32. doi: 10.16997/jdd.393.Goodin, R. E. y Dryzek, J. S. Making Use of Mini-Publics. En Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford University Press, 2008.Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon, 1975.Habermas, J. The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society. En Constellations. 15(4), 2008, 444-455.Held, D. Principles of Cosmopolitan Order. En Held, D. y Wallace, G. (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge: Polity, 2010.Held, D. Restructuring Global Governance: Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and the Global Order. En Millennium. 37(3), 2009, 535-547.Kristan, M. V. Sovereign Schliberties, Where Pettit’s International Protection of Individual Freedom Falls Short. En Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law. (46), 2022. doi: 10.4000/revus.8100.Kristan, M. V. The Game of Global Domination. Tesis doctoral: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2021.Lafont, C. Democracia sin atajos. Una concepción participativa de la democracia deliberativa. Madrid: Trotta, 2021.Lafont, C. Innovaciones democráticas y la amenaza del tecnopopulismo. En Revista de las Cortes Generales. (1)112, 2022, 45-61.Magaña, P. The Political Representation of Nonhuman Animals. En Social Theory and Practice, 2022. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract2022811171.Maisley, N. El derecho de la sociedad civil a participar en la creación del derecho internacional. Tesis doctoral: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2019.Martí, J. L. A Global Republic to Prevent Global Domination. En Diacrítica. Revista do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho. 24(2), 2010, 31-72.Martí, J. L. Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law. En D’Aspremont, J.; Besson, S. y Knuchel, S. (eds.), Oxford Handbook on the Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 724-748.Martí, J. L. Política y bien común global. En C. Espósito y F. Garcimartín (eds.), La protección de bienes jurídicos globales, Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Vol. 16, 2012, 17-37.Martí, J. L. The Role of New Technologies in Deliberative Democracy. En Amato, G.; Barbisan, B. y Pinelli, C. (eds.), Rule of Law v. Majoritarian Democracy. London: Hart, 2021.Nanz, P. y Steffek, J. Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere. En Government and Opposition. 39(2), 2004, 314-335.Nino, C. S. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 1996.Peters, A. Are We Moving Towards Constitutionalization of the World Community? En Cassese, A. (ed.), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-135.Peters, A. Compensatory Constitutionalism: The Function and Potential of Fundamental International Norms and Structures. En Leiden Journal of International Law. 19(3), 2006, 579-610.Peters, A. Dual Democracy. En Klabbers, J.; Peters, A. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.), The Constitutionalization of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 263-341.Pettit, P. A Republican Law of Peoples. En European Journal of Political Theory. 9(1), 2010, 70-94.Pettit, P. Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2014.Pettit, P. On the People’s Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.Pettit, P. Republicanismo. Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno. Barcelona: Paidós, 1999.Pettit, P. The Globalized Republican Ideal. En Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric. 9(1), 2016, 48-68.Pettit, P. The Republican Law of Peoples: A Restatement. En Buckinx, B.; Trejo-Mathys, J. y Waligore, T. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives. Oxford: Routledge, 2015, 49-82.Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.Rawls, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.Sen, A. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2009.Simmons, A. J. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Philosophy & Public Affairs. 38(1), 2010, 5-36.Slaughter, A. M. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. New Haven - London: Yale University Press, 2017.Smith, G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Stemplowska, Z. What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory? En Social Theory and Practice. (34)3, 2008, 319-340.Stemplowska, Z. y Swift, A. Ideal and Nonideal Theory. En Estlund, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 373-389.Valentini, L. Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. En Philosophy Compass. 7(9), 2012, 654-664.M. Victoria Kristan - 2023info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/8593Democratic participation,shortcuts,shortcuts as substitutes,blind deferenceParticipación democrática,atajos,atajos sustitutivos,deferencia ciegaDemocracia global con atajosGlobal Democracy with ShortcutsArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2446https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/2ecce7f7-78d7-49c2-9997-5451d8f4bfa1/download251806c57bd13a2d115668111c16d008MD51001/25497oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/254972025-04-09 12:54:58.737http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0M. Victoria Kristan - 2023https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.coUniversidad Externado de Colombiametabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org

Publicaciones similares