Francis Cheneval

In this contribution, I discuss the thesis that the storage, research, and testing of nuclear weapons ought to fall under the exclusive competence of a supranational authority. As difficult, unrealistic, and potentially dangerous as this proposal might seem to some, others will find it to be too modest and demand total elimination and abolition instead. Therefore, the argument in favor of supranationalization must also consist of an argument against the total elimination of nuclear weapons and their further development. Supranationalization also brings new risks with it. I evaluate these risks and argue that it is nevertheless the best long-term solution compared to its alternatives. I show that the net risk is reduced under supranationalization and that the risks created by it are arguably smaller than in the case of an enduring status quo, at least when considered long-term. My proposal consists of managing the risk of nuclear war more responsibly over time.

The paper explains the original establishment of property by the creationist account. Still, it shows that creationists cannot account for non-creatable things as property without collapsing into the labor-mixing account. Non-creatables, however, can be held in stewardship. The latter is a relation originally established and upheld by acts of care of something held in possession. Stewardship is conditioned and constrained by duties and it grounds stewardship rights to exclusion and control. Based on a hylomorphic account of what it means to create something so that a relation of property is established, the paper shows that an agent has ground to claim an exclusive right of control of a tangible or intangible object just in case (1) they are in a stewardship relation to the non-created parts, which they uphold by sustained acts of care or conservation, and (2) just in case they create the formal proper parts simpliciter of the whole. Property can thus supervene on stewardship, which in turn can supervene on possession. I mention some moral, positive legal, and ecological implications of this position, but they are not my focus.

The article argues that Rawls’s property-owning democracy should not be understood as a necessary standard of democratic legitimacy. This position contradicts Rawls’s own understanding to some extent, but a rejoinder with elements of political liberalism is possible. He concedes that justice as fairness is a ‘comprehensive liberal doctrine’ and that a well ordered society affirming such a doctrine ‘contradicts reasonable pluralism’. Rawls makes clear that reasonable pluralism in combination with the burdens of judgment lead to rare unanimity in political life and to the necessity of majority and plurality voting procedures.

European Stories is the first book of its kind in any European language. Its authors explore the many different ways 'public intellectuals' have debated Europe - the EU and its periphery - within distinct epistemological, disciplinary, ideological and above all national traditions. The chapters focus on the post-1989 era but with a view to the long history of the 'European idea' and its variants across the continent. To what extent such ideas frame the attitude of European publics is left open. But the authors assume that they matter to the European project as a whole. While the twelve national cases have been selected for the broad range they offer, from founding to non-EU member states, they are not exhaustive as the book is meant to encourage further research. The authors of these chapters are all themselves fully immersed in their respective public spheres although generally not strongly identified with one 'camp' or another. The expected readership is broad and interdisciplinary, ranging from political philosophy, to political science, international relations, history, sociology and the history of ideas. Beyond academia, European Stories is meant for all readers interested in the intellectual debates of our time.

The main aim of this final essay is to draw on the insights gathered in the Debate “Do Referendums Enhance or Threaten Democracy” to inform future normative and empirical discussions about the design of popular vote processes. We first offer some clarifications regarding three of the concerns raised by respondents about our introductory essay. We then propose a systematic classification of the lines of variation along which the design of popular vote processes usually varies. More precisely, we highlight nine lines of variation: trigger, origin of the text, legal basis, scope, trigger requirements, time, ballot, information, and decision rule. We conclude by emphasizing the relevance and necessity of debating the formal institutional design of popular vote processes.

Der Band beleuchtet Leibniz' Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie im Kontext seiner Metaphysik, Logik, Erkenntnistheorie und Moralphilosophie. Auch die Rezeption seiner Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie wird in den Beiträgen reflektiert. Gerade im Hinblick auf die aktuelle Diskussion um die politische Gestaltung Europas und die kosmopolitische Gestaltung der Globalisierung verdient seine Philosophie Aufmerksamkeit - nicht zuletzt auch auf Grund interner Spannungen, die das politische Selbstverständnis Europas bis heute kennzeichnen.