Democratic international relations: Montesquieu and the theoretical foundations of democratic peace theory
2012; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 66; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/10357718.2012.672951
ISSN1465-332X
Autores Tópico(s)Peacebuilding and International Security
ResumoAbstract The article examines the extent to which Montesquieu's doux commerce thesis, which claims that commerce leads to softening of manners and therefore favours international peace, presents a challenge to democratic peace theory. It argues that Montesquieu's claim that peace may be due to commerce, and not democracy, provides a theoretical challenge to those scholars who argue that there is a Kantian virtuous triangle of democracy. The practical implication of this theoretical challenge concerns the way democratic peace theory has influenced the practice of international politics, especially American foreign policy. The article argues that Montesquieu's doux commerce thesis mediates between the contending claims of realism and liberal internationalism over the merits of democratisation as an essential means for securing peace. Keywords: commercedemocracydemocratisationKantMontesquieupeace Notes 1. On the 'three waves' of democracy, see Huntington (1991 Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. [Google Scholar]) and Diamond (2002 Diamond, Larry. 2002. Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2): 21–35. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). For the claim that the post-1989 transitions in former communist states should be distinguished as a 'fourth wave' separate from Huntington's 'third' in southern Europe and Latin America, see Doorenspleet (2000 Doorenspleet, Renske. 2000. Reassessing the three waves of democratization. World Politics, 52(3): 384–406. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), McFaul (2002 McFaul, Michael. 2002. The fourth wave of democracy and dictatorship: noncooperative transitions in the postcommunist world. World Politics, 54(2): 212–44. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Tusalem (2007 Tusalem, Rollin F. 2007. A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third- and fourth-wave democracies. International Political Science Review, 28(3): 361–86. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and Welzel and Inglehart (2005 Welzel, Christian and Inglehart, Ronald. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: the human development sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]). 2. On the 'four virtues' of democracy (freedom, prosperity, peace and martial effectiveness), see Reiter and Stam (2002 Reiter, Dan and Stam, Alan. 2002. Democracies at war, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 1–9). On liberalism and its virtues, see Berkowitz (1999 Berkowitz, Peter. 1999. Virtue and the making of modern liberalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Galston (1991 Galston, William A. 1991. Liberal purposes: goods, virtues, and diversity in the liberal state, New York: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and Macedo (1991 Macedo, Stephen. 1991. Liberal virtues: citizenship, virtue and community in liberal constitutionalism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]). 3. See, for example, Kegley and Hermann (1997: 80), who also cite Russett's (1990 Russett, Bruce M. 1990. Controlling the sword: the democratic governance of national security, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 119–20) comment that this empirical regularity is 'one of the strongest non-trivial or non-tautological generalisations that can be made about international relations'. 4. On methodological-based critiques, see Gartzke (1998 Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 1–27. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2000 Gartzke, Erik. 2000. Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2): 191–212. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). On substantive critiques, see Copeland (1996 Copeland, Dale C. 1996. Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations. International Security, 20(4): 5–41. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Farber and Gowa (1997 Farber, Henry S. and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics, 59(2): 393–417. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Gates et al. (1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Gowa (1995 Gowa, Joanne. 1995. Democratic states and international disputes. International Organization, 49(3): 511–22. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Kegley and Hermann (1999), Layne (1994 Layne, Christopher. 1994. Kant or cant: the myth of the democratic peace. International Security, 19(2): 5–49. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Mearsheimer (1990 Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security, 15(1): 5–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Rosato (2003 Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4): 585–602. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Spiro (1994) and Thompson (1996 Thompson, William R. 1996. Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?. International Organization, 50(1): 141–74. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). On how, in the Lakatosian sense, 'realism and/or neorealism has been "falsified"', see Ray (2003: 241). 5. Mearsheimer (1990 Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security, 15(1): 5–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 48n70) traces the theory to Doyle (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 1986 Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4): 1151–69. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who, in turn, draws heavily on Immanuel Kant's classic writings on the subject. On Doyle, see the discussion below. 6. See also Rosato (2003 Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4): 585–602. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 585) and the 'Forum' section on democratic peace in the American Political Science Review, 99(3): 453–72. For comparable arguments, see Farber and Gowa (1997 Farber, Henry S. and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics, 59(2): 393–417. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), Gartzke (1998 Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 1–27. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Layne (1994 Layne, Christopher. 1994. Kant or cant: the myth of the democratic peace. International Security, 19(2): 5–49. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Farber and Gowa (1997 Farber, Henry S. and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common interests or common polities? Reinterpreting the democratic peace. Journal of Politics, 59(2): 393–417. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), for example, suggest that the cold war largely explains the democratic peace finding. 7. Of course, not all scholars have relied on Kant: see, for example, Owen (1994 Owen, John M. 1994. How liberalism produces democratic peace. International Security, 19(2): 87–125. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who argues that it is liberalism, rather than democracy, that causes peace. Yet, in explicating the meaning of liberalism, Owen, too, draws on liberal thinkers (see his references to Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant [93–4]). Indeed, except for the reliance on simple self-interest (and not justice [96]) and the rejection of an inevitable 'perpetual peace' (125), Owen's thesis seems in all important aspects Kantian. We should note in this respect that democratic peace theory has been criticised for being 'theory poor' (Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman 1992 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David. 1992. War and reason: domestic and international imperatives, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]; Gates et al. 1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Lake 1992 Lake, David A. 1992. Powerful pacifists: democratic states and war. American Political Science Review, 86(1): 24–37. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), although, of course, there is no reason why research in this area cannot proceed 'inductively' (Gates et al. 1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 3). 8. For his initial formulation of this argument, see Doyle (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 9. This discussion draws on Doyle (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). For his more recent work, emphasising the importance of having all three definitive articles for democratic peace, see Doyle (2005 Doyle, Michael W. 2005. Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review, 99(3): 463–6. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 10. See, for example, Doyle (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 226n24). On recent scholarship, see Baum (2008 Baum, Thomas. 2008. A quest for inspiration in the liberal peace paradigm: back to Bentham?. European Journal of International Relations, 14(3): 431–53. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who provides a critique of Kant by turning to Bentham; Jahn (2005), who examines the liberal internationalism of Kant and John Stuart Mill; Williams (2001 Williams, Michael C. 2001. The discipline of the democratic peace: Kant, liberalism and the social construction of security communities. European Journal of International Relations, 7(4): 525–53. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who seeks to recover greater insights from Kantian liberalism; Cederman (2001 Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2001. Back to Kant: reinterpreting the democratic peace as a macrohistorical learning process. American Political Science Review, 95(1): 15–31. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who argues that there is a democratic dialectical learning process; and Dixon (1994 Dixon, William J. 1994. Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review, 88(1): 14–32. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who notes that there is diversity in approaches, ranging from his own Kantian liberalism, to Rummel's libertarian theory, to the rational choice approach of Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman (1992 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Lalman, David. 1992. War and reason: domestic and international imperatives, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]) and Lake (1992 Lake, David A. 1992. Powerful pacifists: democratic states and war. American Political Science Review, 86(1): 24–37. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 11. See Gates et al. (1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 6) and Spiro (1994: 52). Indeed, this scholarship does not generally acknowledge the significant differences between liberalism, democracy and republicanism. 12. On Kant's critique of Hobbes, see Williams (2003 Williams, Howard. 2003. Kant's critique of Hobbes, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. [Google Scholar]). On Hobbes' international relations thought generally, see Patapan (2009 Patapan, Haig. 2009. "The glorious sovereign: Thomas Hobbes' understanding of leadership and international relations". In British international thinkers from Hobbes to Namier, Edited by: Hall, Ian and Hill, Lisa. 11–33. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]). 13. On the importance of anarchy and conflict as a key source of progress for Kant, see Huntley (1996 Huntley, Wade L. 1996. Kant's third image: systemic sources of the liberal peace. International Studies Quarterly, 40(1): 45–76. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). 14. References to The Spirit of the Laws are to Montesquieu (1989 Montesquieu , 1989 . The spirit of the laws , trans . and ed. Anne M. Cohler , Basia C. Miller and Harold Samuel Stone Cambridge : first published 1748 , Cambridge University Press . [Google Scholar]) by book, chapter and page. I draw on Pangle's (1973 Pangle, Thomas L. 1973. Montesquieu's philosophy of liberalism: a commentary on The Spirit of the Laws, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 200–48) succinct overview of Montesquieu's conception of commerce, as well as Pangle (2010 Pangle, Thomas L. 2010. The theological basis of liberal modernity in Montesquieu's spirit of the laws, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]) and Rahe (2009 Rahe, Paul A. 2009. Montesquieu and the logic of liberty, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]). On Montesquieu more generally, see Desserud (1999). 15. For an overview of Montesquieu's international relations, see Rosow (1984 Rosow, Stephen J. 1984. Commerce, power and justice: Montesquieu on international politics. Review of Politics, 46(3): 346–66. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 16. As Hirschman (1977 Hirschman, Albert O. 1977. The passions and the interests: political arguments for capitalism before its triumph, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]: 93–113) notes, Montesquieu's arguments are different from those of the physiocrats and the free-trade claims based on Adam Smith. 17. See, generally, Gleditsch (2008 Gleditsch, Nils Peter. 2008. The liberal moment fifteen years on. International Studies Quarterly, 52(4): 691–712. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Russett and Oneal (2001 Russett, Bruce M. and Oneal, John R. 2001. Triangulating peace: democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, New York: W.W. Norton. [Google Scholar]). Copeland (1996 Copeland, Dale C. 1996. Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations. International Security, 20(4): 5–41. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 6) refers to the 'trade expectations'. 18. See the passing reference to 'classical scholars' in Oneal and Russett (1997 Oneal, John R. and Russett, Bruce M. 1997. The classical liberals were right: democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2): 267–93. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Russett and Oneal (2001 Russett, Bruce M. and Oneal, John R. 2001. Triangulating peace: democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, New York: W.W. Norton. [Google Scholar]: 128–9) refer to the French physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine and Richard Cobden. Most international relations scholars who turn to Kant do not appreciate sufficiently the long and complex intellectual history of liberal thought regarding the role of trade. Van de Haar (2010 Haar, Edwin van de. 2010. The liberal divide over trade, peace and war. International Relations, 24(2): 132–54. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) notes the other major liberal source as Adam Smith, but takes pains to show the ambiguities in the liberal position, especially of Adam Smith and David Hume, regarding commerce. 19. Montesquieu influenced Kant directly (on Kant's sources in 'Perpetual Peace', including Vattel, Montesquieu and The Federalist Papers, see Ossipow [2008 Ossipow, William. 2008. Kant's Perpetual Peace and its hidden sources: a textual approach. Swiss Political Science Review, 14(2): 357–89. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]]) and mediately through Rousseau. As Gates et al. (1996 Gates, Scott, Knutsen, Torbjørn L. and Moses, Jonathon W. 1996. Democracy and peace: a more skeptical view. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 6) aptly put it: 'Why have not Rousseau and Montesquieu been more closely considered in the DP [democratic peace] literature?' There are few international relations scholars who have examined Montesquieu's influence on international relations theory. See, however, Doyle's (1983 Doyle, Michael W. 1983. Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3): 205–35. [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 225n23) passing reference; Rosow (1984 Rosow, Stephen J. 1984. Commerce, power and justice: Montesquieu on international politics. Review of Politics, 46(3): 346–66. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), for a theoretical overview of Montesquieu's international relations thought; and Howse (2005 Howse , Robert , 2005–6 . ' Montesquieu on commerce, war, and peace ', Brookings Journal of International Law , 31 3 : 693 – 708 . [Google Scholar]–6), on the legal aspects of his internationalism. Deudney (2004 Deudney, Daniel. 2004. Publius before Kant: federal republican security and democratic peace. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3): 315–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 317) examines the problem of federalism. 20. On Montesquieu's influence on the American founders, see Rahe (1994). 21. This research will have two dimensions, the first examining the extent to which commerce does soften manners (which would include longitudinal studies examining the influence of commerce on manners, addressing themes such as civility and trust) and the second, which I address below, on the link between commerce and peace. 22. For an overview of the scholarship regarding 'economic conditionality', see Mousseau (2009), who argues that democratic peace can be explained by economic norm theory, and Russett and Oneal (2001 Russett, Bruce M. and Oneal, John R. 2001. Triangulating peace: democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, New York: W.W. Norton. [Google Scholar]: 125–56). See also Hegre (2000 Hegre, Harvard. 2000. Development and the liberal peace: what does it take to be a trading state?. Journal of Peace Research, 37(1): 5–30. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who argues that the relationship between trade and peace depends on the level of development, and Gartzke (2007 Gartzke, Erik. 2007. The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 166–91. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) on 'capitalist peace'. 23. For the extensive scholarship, see van de Haar (2010: 149, note 6). See also Barbieri and Schneider (1999 Barbieri, Katharine and Schneider, Gerald. 1999. Globalization and peace: assessing new directions in the study of trade and conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 36(4): 387–404. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), who examine recent literature that is more sceptical as to whether trade reduces conflict. Martin et al. (2006) argue that the view that trade promotes peace is only partially true. They do, however, find 'robust evidence for the contrasting effects of bilateral and multilateral trade openness'. Mousseau et al. (2006: 865) focus on contract theory, sociology and economics. 24. See Mearsheimer (1990 Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security, 15(1): 5–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 42n60), regarding the international political economy literature, and Layne (1994 Layne, Christopher. 1994. Kant or cant: the myth of the democratic peace. International Security, 19(2): 5–49. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 10). Copeland (1996 Copeland, Dale C. 1996. Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations. International Security, 20(4): 5–41. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 6) notes the realists' case that before World War I, European powers had reached unprecedented levels of trade, yet that did not prevent them from going to war. 25. Mearsheimer's (1990 Mearsheimer, John J. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the cold war. International Security, 15(1): 5–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]: 54–6) post-cold war policy recommendations (American encouragement of limited nuclear proliferation, balancing of power by Britain and the United States in Europe, and measures against hyper-nationalism in Europe) are clearly opposed to democratisation. 26. On the meaning of liberal internationalism, see Ikenberry (2009 Ikenberry, G. John. 2009. Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1): 71–87. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). On the Bush Doctrine, see Dueck (2003 Dueck , Colin , 2003–4 . ' Hegemony on the cheap: liberal internationalism from Wilson to Bush ', World Policy Journal , 20 4 : 1 – 11 .[Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]–4), Hendrickson and Tucker (2005 Hendrickson, David C. and Tucker, Robert W. 2005. The freedom crusade. National Interest, 81: 12–21. [Google Scholar]), Jervis (2003 Jervis, Robert. 2003. Understanding the Bush doctrine. Political Science Quarterly, 118(3): 365–88. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Monten (2005 Monten, Jonathan. 2005. The roots of the Bush doctrine: power, nationalism, and democracy promotion in US strategy. International Security, 29(4): 112–56. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). For claims that the presidency of George W. Bush marks the demise of the era of liberal internationalism in America, see the debate in a series of articles by Kupchan and Trubowitz (2007 Kupchan, Charles and Trubowitz, Peter. 2007. Dead center: the demise of liberal internationalism in the United States. International Security, 32(2): 7–44. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2010 Kupchan, Charles and Trubowitz, Peter. 2010. The illusion of liberal internationalism's revival. International Security, 35(1): 95–109. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and Chaudoin et al. (2010). 27. On American foreign policy traditions in general, see Kane (2008 Kane, John. 2008. Between power and virtue: the persistent moral dilemma of US foreign policy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]), Lieven (2004 Lieven, Anatol. 2004. America right or wrong: an anatomy of American nationalism, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]) and Mead (2002 Mead, Walter Russell. 2002. Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world, New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). 28. To the extent that Montesquieu emphasises the importance of mores and society for international relations, he may be said to anticipate modern 'constructivism'. Indeed, it is possible that one of the theoretical sources of constructivism is Montesquieu, via Rousseau's conception of society (Rousseau was greatly influenced by Montesquieu). On Rousseau's theory of international affairs, see Hoffmann and Fidler (1991 Hoffmann , Stanley and David P. Fidler , 1991 . Rousseau on international relations Oxford : Clarendon Press . [Google Scholar]). On constructivism generally, see Kubálková et al. (1998 Kubálková , Vendulka , Nicholas Onuf and Paul Kowert 1998 . International relations in a constructed world Armonk , NY : M.E. Sharpe . [Google Scholar]), Wendt (1999 Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social theory of international politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and Guzzini and Leander (2006 Guzzini, Stefano and Leander, Anna. 2006. Constructivism and international relations: Alexander Wendt and his critics, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 29. For an indication of how it may be possible to negotiate between the necessary and persistent demands of stability and the ever present ambitions for democratic reform, see Kane and Patapan (2010 Kane, John and Patapan, Haig. 2010. Recovering justice: political legitimacy reconsidered. Politics and Policy, 38(3): 589–610. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Additional informationNotes on contributorsHaig PatapanHaig Patapan is Professor in the School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University. His research interests are in democratic theory, political philosophy, comparative constitutionalism, and political leadership. Research for this article was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant
Referência(s)