Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:55:20.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postnational discourse, deliberation, and participation toward global risk governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2013

ANDREAS KLINKE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An emerging task in world politics is to cope with human-induced global risks in domains such as environment, economy, security, and health. Current global governance institutions are largely incapable of tackling global risks and applying deductive policy models, which is why new modes of interaction may become essential. In this article I argue that through focused discourses, key peculiarities of global risks, namely complexity, scientific uncertainty and sociopolitical ambiguity, may be identified and understood. To this end, distinctively discursive and pragmatic learning processes can be developed. Different forms of deliberation and participation help develop processes that meet the challenges, problems, and conflicts that result from the key peculiarities of global risks. Hence, the article establishes a causal link between key peculiarities of global risks and postnational discourses. I discuss the varying forms of deliberation and participation (epistemic institutions, associational policy making, and transnational public deliberation and participation) of three discourses that produce institutional problem solving capacity in global risk governance. To this end, this article links theory and practice as well as normative conceptualisation and institutional feasibility.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 247 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Governance has been defined both broadly and narrowly. I refer to the broad understanding meaning ‘the processes and institutions, both formal and informal that guide and restrain the collective activities of a group’, see Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., ‘Introduction’, in Nye, Joseph S. and Donahue, John D. (eds), Governance in a Globalizing World (Washington: Brookings Institutions, 2000), p. 12Google Scholar.

2 Scholarly ideas on such new global governance structures are manifold, see, for example, Beck, Ulrich, ‘World Risk Society and the Changing Foundations of Transnational Politics’, in Grande, Edgar and Pauly, Louis W. (eds), Complex Sovereignty: Reconstituting Political Authority in the 21st Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), pp. 22–47Google Scholar; Beck, Ulrich, World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Biermann, Frank, Pattberg, Philipp, van Asselt, Harro, and Zelli, Fariborz, ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis’, Global Environmental Politics, 9:4 (2009), pp. 14–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Biermann, Franket al., ‘Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance’, Science, 335 (16 March 2012), pp. 1306–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Edgar Grande and Bernhard Zangl, ‘Varieties of Preventive Governance in World Risk Society’, Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Montréal, 15–19 March 2011); Haas, Peter M., ‘Addressing the Global Governance Deficit’, Global Environmental Politics, 4:4 (2004), pp. 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See also Beck, Ulrich, World Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Beck, World at Risk; Beck, Ulrich and Grande, Edgar, Cosmopolitan Europe (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Grande and Zangl, ‘Varieties of Preventive Governance in World Risk Society’; Krahmann, Elke, ‘Beck and Beyond: Selling Security in the World Risk Society’, Review of International Studies, 37:1 (2011), pp. 349–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendelsohn, Barak, ‘Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda Network’, Review of International Studies, 31:1 (2005), pp. 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Bohman, James, Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Dryzek, John, Discursive Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Elster, Jon, ‘Deliberation and Constitution Making’, in Elster, Jon (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory (London: Polity, 1996)Google Scholar; Hajer, Maarten, The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

5 Albert, Mathias, Kessler, Oliver, and Stetter, Stephan, ‘On Order and Conflict: International Relations and the “Communicative Turn”’, Review of International Studies, 34 (2008), pp. 43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baber, Walter E. and Bartlett, Robert F., Global Democracy and Sustainable Jurisprudence: Deliberative Environmental Law (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole, ‘The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), pp. 33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grobe, Christian, ‘The Power of Words: Argumentative Persuasion in International Negotiations’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:1 (2010), pp. 5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinke, Andreas, ‘Democratizing Regional Environmental Governance: Public Deliberation and Participation in Transboundary Eco-Regions’, Global Environmental Politics, 12:3 (2012), pp. 79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinke, Andreas, ‘Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen – demokratische Legitimation und Effektivität der grenzüberschreitenden Wasser- und Umweltpolitik zwischen Kanada und USA’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 50:4 (2009), pp. 774–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinke, Andreas, ‘Deliberative Transnationalism – Transnational Governance, Public Participation and Expert Deliberation’, Forest Policy and Economics, 11 (2009), pp. 348–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas, ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’, Government and Opposition, 39 (2004), pp. 288–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas, ‘“Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics’, International Organization, 54:1 (2000), pp. 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steffek, Jens, ‘The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:2 (2003), pp. 249–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf. Beck, World at Risk; Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (London: Heinemann Education, 1984)Google Scholar.

7 Bohman, Public Deliberation, p. 32.

8 Cf. Estlund, David, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cf. Bohman, James, Democracy across Borders. From Dêmos to Dêmoi (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Bohman, James, ‘Epistemic Value and Deliberative Democracy’, The Good Society, 18:2 (2009), pp. 28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Schmidt, Vivien A., ‘Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11 (2008), pp. 303–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A similar approach has been denoted as constructivist institutionalism, see Hay, Colin, ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’, in Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, Sarah A., and Rockman, Bert A. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 56–74Google Scholar.

11 Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R., ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 154:5 (1996), pp. 936–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., ‘Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”’, in Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, Sarah A., and Rockman, Bert A. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 3–20Google Scholar.

12 Klinke, Andreas and Renn, Ortwin, ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Strategies’, Risk Analysis, 22:6 (2002), pp. 1071–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Klinke, Andreas and Renn, Ortwin, ‘Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty’, Journal of Risk Research, 15:3 (2012), pp. 273–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O., ‘Ideas and Foreign Policy. An Analytical Framework’, in Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O. (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 8–11Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 10.

15 Cf. Lewin, Roger, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Macmillan, 1992)Google Scholar; Underdal, Arild, ‘Complexity and Challenges of Long-Term Environmental Governance’, Global Environmental Change, 20 (2009), pp. 386–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

17 Cf. Filar, Jerzey A., and Haurie, Alain (eds), Uncertainty and Environmental Decision Making (New Yorket al., Springer, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halpern, Joseph Y., Reasoning about Uncertainty (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

18 Funtowicz, Silvio A. and Ravetz, Jerome R., Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990), pp. 21–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 For the distinction of dimensions and components of uncertainty, see Klinke and Renn, ‘A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management’ and ‘Adaptive and Integrative Governance on Risk and Uncertainty’.

20 Cf. March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (Bergenet al., Universitetsforlaget, 1979)Google Scholar; Zahariadis, Nikolaos, Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

21 Stirling, Andrew, ‘Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences’, in Berkhout, Frans, Leach, Melissa, and Scoones, Ian (eds), Negotiating Environmental Change. New Perspectives from Social Sciences (London: Edward Elgar, 2003), pp. 33–76Google Scholar.

22 See the IAEA documents on Iran, available at: {www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml} accessed August 2012.

23 For a critical analysis of the role and function of global civil society – seen as public sphere – for deliberative approaches in global governance, see Brassett, James and Smith, William, ‘Deliberation and Global Civil Society: Agency, Arena, Affect’, Review of International Studies, 36:2 (2010), pp. 413–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Fraser, Nancy, ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere: On the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Public Opinion in a Post-Westphalian World’, Theory, Culture & Society, 24:4 (2007), p. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Bohman, Democracy across Borders; Fraser, ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere’; Risse, Thomas, A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres (Ithaca: Cornell University, 2010)Google Scholar; Steffek, Jens, ‘Public Accountability and the Public Sphere of International Governance’, Ethics & International Affairs, 24:1 (2010), pp. 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Fraser, ‘Transnationalizing the Public Sphere’, p. 7.

27 Risse, A Community of Europeans?, p. 6; cf. also Steffek, ‘Public Accountability and the Public Sphere of International Governance’.

28 For example, Nanz, Patrizia and Steffek, Jens, ‘Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere’, Government and Opposition, 39:2 (2004), pp. 324–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jens Steffek, ‘Public Accountability and the Public Sphere of International Governance’; Guidry, John A., Kennedy, Michael D., and Zald, Mayer N., ‘Globalizations and Social Movements’, in Guidry, John A., Kennedy, Michael D., and Zald, Mayer N. (eds), Globalizations and Social Movements: Culture, Power and the Transnational Public Sphere (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Cf. Balsiger, Jörg, ‘New Environmental Regionalism and Sustainable Development in the European Alps’, Global Environmental Politics, 12:3 (2012), pp. 58–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kern, Kristine, ‘Governance for Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region’, Journal of Baltic Studies, 42:1 (2011), pp. 21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinke, Andreas, Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Staates: Deliberative Politik im nordamerikanischen Große Seen-Regime (Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publisher, 2006)Google Scholar; Klinke, ‘Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen’; VanDeveer, Stacy D., ‘Networked Baltic Environmental Cooperation’, Journal of Baltic Studies, 42:1 (2011), pp. 37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Risse, A Community of Europeans?, p. 121.

31 Cf. Habermas, Jürgen, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Risse, A Community of Europeans?, pp. 107–26.

32 Cf. Bohman, Democracy across Borders.

33 Klinke, Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Staates.

34 Bohman, Democracy across Borders, p. 64.

35 See, for example, Bohman, Public Deliberation; Bohman, James, ‘Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6:4 (1998), pp. 400–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bohman, James and Rehg, William (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Christiano, Thomas, The Constitution of Equality. Democratic Authority and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, Joshua, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’, in Hamlin, Alan and Pettit, Philipp (eds), The Good Polity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), pp. 17–34Google Scholar; Dryzek, Discursive Democracy; Elster, Jon (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Estlund, Democratic Authority; Forst, Rainer, ‘The Rule of Reasons. Three Models of Deliberative Democracy’, Ratio Juris, 14:4 (2001), pp. 345–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guttman, Amy and Thompson, Dennis, Democracy and Disagreement. Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What Should Be Done about It (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms; Nino, Carlos, The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Havard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

36 See, for example, Bohman, James, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions’, International Affairs, 75:3 (1999), pp. 499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bohman, Democracy across Borders; Deitelhoff, ‘The Discursive Process of Legalization’; Dryzek, John, ‘Transnational Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 7:1 (1999), pp. 30–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klinke, ‘Democratizing Regional Environmental Governance’; Klinke, ‘Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen’; Risse, ‘“Let's Argue!”’; Risse, ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’; Steffek, ‘The Legitimation of International Governance’; Ulbert, Cornelia and Risse, Thomas, ‘Deliberately Changing the Discourse: What Does Make Arguing Effective?’, Acta Politica, 40 (2005), pp. 351–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Cf. Haas, Peter M. and Haas, Ernst B., ‘Learning to Learn: Improving International Governance’, Global Governance, 1 (1995), pp. 255–85Google Scholar.

38 For the definition of and distinction between arguing and bargaining as well as the interplay of both, see Elster, Jon, ‘Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies’, Journal of Constitutional Law, 2:2 (2000), pp. 345–421Google Scholar; Holzinger, Katherina, ‘Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 42:3 (2001), pp. 414–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, ‘“Let's Argue!”’; Risse, ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’; Ulbert and Risse, ‘Deliberately Changing the Discourse’.

39 Risse, ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’, p. 294.

40 Ibid.

41 Elster, ‘Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies’.

42 Haas, Peter M., ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46:1 (1992), pp. 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, ‘Discursive Institutionalism’.

43 Cf. Bulkeley, Harriet and Newell, Peter, Governing Climate Change (London and New York: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Dessler, Andrew and Parson, Edward A., The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics’, International Social Science Journal, 51:1 (1998), pp. 89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Haas, Peter M., ‘Banning Chlorofluorocarbons – Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone’, International Organization, 46:1 (1992), pp. 187–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Cf. Rich, Andrew, Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Bohman, James, ‘Democracy as Inquiry, Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labor’, American Journal of Political Science, 43:2 (1999), p. 590CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance’, p. 592.

49 For example, Haas, Peter, ‘When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11:4 (2004), pp. 569–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Cf. Bulkeley and Newell, Governing Climate Change; Dessler and Parson, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change.

51 Haas, Peter M., ‘Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control’, International Organization, 43:3 (1989), pp. 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Litfin, Karen T., Ozone Discourses. Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

52 Cf. Bäckstrand, Karin, ‘Democratizing Global Environmental Governance? Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:4 (2006), pp. 467–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grigorescu, Alexandru, ‘Transparency of Intergovernmental Organizations: The Roles of Member States, International Bureaucracies and Nongovernmental Organizations’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:3 (2007), pp. 625–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Payne, Rodger A. and Samhat, Nayef H., Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

53 See, for example, German Advisory Council on Global Change, ‘World in Transition: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere’ (London: Earthscan, 2001).

54 See, for example, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ‘Review of the State of World Marine Fishery Resources’, Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 569 (Rome: FAO, 2011).

55 Cf. Wolf, Klaus Dieter, ‘Emerging Patterns of Global Governance: The New Interplay between the State, Business and Civil Society’, in Scherer, Andreas G. and Palazzo, Guido (eds), Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008), pp. 225–48Google Scholar.

56 Risse, ‘“Let's Argue!”’; Risse, ‘Global Governance and Communicative Action’.

57 See, for example, Beierle, Thomas C. and Cayford, Jerry, Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (Washington: Resources for the Future, 2002)Google Scholar; Renn, Ortwin, Webler, Thomas, and Wiedemann, Peter M. (eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Cf. Dingwerth, Klaus, ‘North-South Parity in Global Governance: The Affirmative Procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council’, Global Governance, 14:1 (2008), pp. 53–71Google Scholar; Eden, Sally and Bear, Christopher, ‘Third-sector Global Environmental Governance, Space and Science: Comparing Fishery and Forestry Certification’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12:1 (2010), pp. 83–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Chan, Sander and Pattberg, Philipp, ‘Private Rule-Making and the Politics of Accountability: Analyzing Global Forest Governance’, Global Environmental Politics, 8:3 (2008), pp. 103–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Dingwerth, ‘North-South Parity in Global Governance’; Schepers, Donald H., ‘Challenges to Legitimacy at the Forest Stewardship Council’, Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (2010), pp. 279–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Bäckstrand, ‘Democratizing Global Environmental Governance?’; Streck, Charlotte, ‘New Partnerships in Global Environmental Policy’, Journal of Environment and Development, 13:3 (2004), pp. 295–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolf, ‘Emerging Patterns of Global Governance’.

62 Forst, ‘The Rule of Reasons’.

63 Cf. Guttman and Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement, p. 128.

64 Cf. Thompson, Michael and Rayner, Steve, ‘Risk and Governance Part I: The Discourses on Climate Change’, Government and Opposition, 33:2 (1998), pp. 139–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bäckstrand, Karin, ‘Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance’, Global Environmental Politics, 3:4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Thompson and Rayner, ‘Risk and Governance Part I’.

66 Grunwald, Armin, Technikfolgenabschätzung – eine Einführung (Berlin: Edition Sigma, 2010), p. 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Goodin, Robert E. and Dryzek, John S., ‘Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics’, Politics & Society, 34:2 (2006), pp. 219–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Scholarly work indicates that these procedures give participants equal rights and that they convey argumentative rationality, see, for example, Baber and Bartlett, Global Democracy and Sustainable Jurisprudence; Beierle and Cayford, Democracy in Practice; Goodin and Dryzek, ‘Deliberative Impacts’; National Research Council, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (Washington: The National Academies Press, 2008)Google ScholarPubMed; Renn, Webler, and Wiedemann, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation.

69 Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance’, p. 503.

70 Ibid.; Knight, Jack and Johnson, James, ‘What Sort of Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require?’, in Bohman, James and Rehg, William (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), pp. 279–319Google Scholar.

71 Cf. Bohman, ‘International Regimes and Democratic Governance’; Cohen, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’; Forst, ‘The Rule of Reasons’; Guttman and Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement.

72 For discussions on global ethics and global justice, see Hutchings, Kimberly, Global Ethics. An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Hutchings, Kimberly, ‘Global Justice’, in Hay, Colin (ed.), New Directions in Political Science: Responding to the Challenges of an Interdependent World (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)Google Scholar.

73 Cf. Bohman, ‘Survey Article’, p. 407.

74 Cf. Elster, ‘Deliberation and Constitution Making’; Elster, ‘Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies’.

75 Klinke, Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Staates; Klinke, ‘Deliberative Politik in transnationalen Räumen’.

76 Cf. Goodin and Dryzek, ‘Deliberative Impacts’, p. 221.

77 Benhabib, Seyla, ‘Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy’, in Benhabib, Seyla (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 68Google Scholar; Manin, Bernard, ‘On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation’, Political Theory, 15:3 (1987), p. 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Offe, Claus and Preuss, Ulrich K., ‘Democratic Institutions and Moral Ressources’, in Held, David (ed.), Political Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), p. 166Google Scholar.

79 Cf. Bohman, ‘Survey Article’, p. 418.

80 Deitelhoff, ‘The Discursive Process of Legalization’, p. 61.

81 The extensive literature on those questions and issues cannot be recognised here, see, for example, Fung, Archon, ‘Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11:3 (2003), pp. 338–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodin and Dryzek, ‘Deliberative Impacts’.

82 Forst, ‘The Rule of Reasons’, p. 362.

83 Bohman, James, ‘Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources and Opportunities’, in Bohman, James and Rehg, William (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), pp. 337–8Google Scholar.

84 Cohen, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’, p. 19.

85 Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 306Google Scholar.

86 Christiano, The Constitution of Equality.