[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.17.6″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]<\/p>\n
Convenors<\/strong><\/p>\n Michael Da Silva<\/strong> (University of Ottawa) *All Times are Britis Summer Time (BST)<\/p>\n 1 P.M. \u2013 4 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cStudying Federal \u2018Ideas\u2019 1\u201d \u2013 Michael Da Silva<\/strong> (University of Ottawa)<\/p>\n \u201cThe Federation as a Community Formed to Promote the Autonomy of Its Neighbours\u201d \u2013 Marc Go\u00ebtzmann<\/strong> (Tel Aviv University)<\/p>\n \u201cThe Paradox of Modern Federalism: A Kantian Solution\u201d \u2013 A.J. Wolthuis<\/strong> (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)<\/p>\n 5 P.M. \u2013 8 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPolitical Experimentation as a Source of Insight Into the Demands of Justice\u201d \u2013 Gregory Robson<\/strong> (Iowa State University)<\/p>\n \u201cTransformative Political Experimentation, Perspectival Diversity, and the Polycentric Liberal Order\u201d \u2013 Aylon Manor<\/strong> (University of Maryland)<\/p>\n \u201cCollective Self-Determination as a Shared Grammar for Negotiating Decolonized Federal Institutions in Settler \u2013 Indigenous Contexts\u201d \u2013 Michael Luoma<\/strong> (Queens University)<\/p>\n 1 P.M. \u2013 4 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cFrom Group Rights to (Expanded) Federalism\u201d \u2013 \u00c9liot Litalien<\/strong> (McGill University)<\/p>\n \u201cSubsidiarity Under a Dynamic View of Federalism\u201d \u2013 Daniel Weinstock<\/strong> (McGill University)<\/p>\n \u201cWhy Federalism Needs a (Vague) Principle of Subsidiarity\u201d \u2013 Loren King<\/strong> (Wilfred Laurier University)<\/p>\n 5 P.M. \u2013 8 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cDesigning Federal Systems for Foot Voting\u201d \u2013 Ilya Somin<\/strong> (George Mason University)<\/p>\n \u201cFederalism, Group Agency, and Universal Basic Income\u201d \u2013 Travis Quigley<\/strong> (University of Arizona)<\/p>\n \u201cFiscal Federalism: Egalitarianism or Sufficientarianism?\u201d \u2013 Cristi\u00e1n Fatauros<\/strong> and Lisandro G\u00f3mez<\/strong> (Universidad Nacional de C\u00f3rdoba)<\/p>\n 2 P.M. \u2013 4 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe Balance of Power and Kant\u2019s International Federation\u201d \u2013 Tom Bailey<\/strong> (London School of Economics)<\/p>\n \u201cThe Classical Anarchist Ideal of Decentralised Federalism\u201d \u2013 Melis Kirtilli<\/strong> (University of Oxford)<\/p>\n 5 P.M. \u2013 8 P.M.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPolitical Sovereignty, Alienation, and the Proximity Principle\u201d\u2013 Santiago Truccone<\/strong> (University of Graz)<\/p>\n \u201cPartisanship in Federal Institutions\u201d \u2013 Geoff Callaghan<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cSeparate Sovereignties and Shared Sovereignty \u2013 How Federalism can Create Space for Indigenous Nations in Canada\u201d \u2013 Ian Peach<\/strong> (McGill University\/Wolastoqey Language and Culture Centre, Inc.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Philosophers once played a central role in the analysis and development of federalism. David\u00a0Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and J.S. Mill are just four central figures in the\u00a0history of federalism. Yet modern studies of federalism are, with few (very good) exceptions\u00a0(Will Kymlicka, Wayne Norman, etc.), conducted in political science or law. Empirical works in\u00a0those fields identified key features of federal states for which any analysis of federalism should\u00a0be able to account. Some works in legal and political theory (Richard Bellamy, Jacob Levy, etc.)\u00a0clearly contribute to philosophy. Yet federalism remains peripheral in political philosophy.<\/p>\n This is curious where a majority of the world\u2019s population arguably lives in federal states and claims about the \u2018nature\u2019 of federalism are central to ongoing political debates within and across\u00a0states (e.g., the relationship between the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Scotland\u00a0post-Brexit or federal, state, and municipal disagreements on immigration, gun control, and\/or\u00a0health care in the United States). Such appeals are common not only in politics, but also in\u00a0theory and law. Indeed, \u2018federalism\u2019 is said to be a basic constitutional principle in Canada, but\u00a0the nature of this principle remains opaque absent analytical scrutiny of what federalism entails.<\/p>\n Appeals to the nature or purpose of federalism rely on implicit assumptions about the purposes\u00a0and necessary features of federalism that would benefit from analyst not only by theorists, but also by political philosophers. Consider, for instance, claims that \u2018federalism\u2019 is an idea, rather\u00a0than a set of institutions, committed to a combination of unity and diversity or claims that\u00a0federalism requires \u2018co-operation\u2019 between the constituent parts of a federal states. Whether\u00a0these claims are (a) philosophically justifiable and (b) consonant with the empirical findings\u00a0about federalism requires greater scrutiny. There is even reason to question whether \u2018federalism\u2019\u00a0is an \u2018idea\u2019 over and above a set of institutional arrangements or a descriptor for institutional\u00a0arrangements. These issues may be primary over now more central institutional design questions.\u00a0Whether institutions must be designed to promote a federal idea or are federal when sharing certain features regardless of their intended ends is key to evaluating institutional proposals.<\/p>\n The purpose of this workshop is to work on a modern philosophy of federalism. To this end, the\u00a0contributors will examine whether there is a clear \u2018idea\u2019 of federalism that can explain the\u00a0nstitutional forms that are often described as \u2018federalist\u2019 and whether that idea can serve as the\u00a0basis of justifiable political arrangements. As part of this analysis, they will explore the potential\u00a0ends of federalism, implicit commitments in the federal \u2018idea\u2019, and whether they can plausibly\u00a0combine with each other and with the institutional arrangements found in federal states. If\u00a0successful, this analysis should contribute to future debates on the institutions and processes of federal law and politics and help decision-makers better evaluate appeals to the federal idea.<\/p>\n We would appreciate if scholars interested in contributing to this workshop would submit\u00a0abstracts prepared for anonymous review to manceptfederalism@gmail.com<\/a> by 15 May 2021<\/strong>.\u00a0Selected participants may be asked to submit a draft paper and must register prior to the event.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On the Philosophy of Federalism Convenors Michael Da Silva (University of Ottawa) Daniel Weinstock (McGill University) *All Times are Britis Summer Time (BST) 7 September 2021 Session 1 : Basic Conceptual Considerations 1 P.M. \u2013 4 P.M. \u201cStudying Federal \u2018Ideas\u2019 1\u201d \u2013 Michael Da Silva (University of Ottawa) \u201cThe Federation as a Community Formed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4408,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"Convenors<\/strong>\r\n\r\nMichael Da Silva<\/strong> (University of Ottawa)\r\nDaniel Weinstock<\/strong> (McGill University)\r\n\r\n
Daniel Weinstock<\/strong> (McGill University)<\/p>\n
\n7 September 2021<\/h4>\n
Session 1 : Basic Conceptual Considerations<\/em><\/h6>\n
Session 2 : Federal Purposes and Outputs<\/em><\/h6>\n
8 September 2021<\/h4>\n
Session Number 3 : Principles of Federalism<\/em><\/h6>\n
Session Number 4 : Designing Federal Systems<\/em><\/h6>\n
9 September 2021<\/h4>\n
Session Number 5 : Historical Considerations and Their Modern Import<\/em><\/h6>\n
Session Number 6: Case Studies<\/em><\/h6>\n
\r\n\r\nPhilosophers once played a central role in the analysis and development of federalism. David\u00a0Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and J.S. Mill are just four central figures in the\u00a0history of federalism. Yet modern studies of federalism are, with few (very good) exceptions\u00a0(Will Kymlicka, Wayne Norman, etc.), conducted in political science or law. Empirical works in\u00a0those fields identified key features of federal states for which any analysis of federalism should\u00a0be able to account. Some works in legal and political theory (Richard Bellamy, Jacob Levy, etc.)\u00a0clearly contribute to philosophy. Yet federalism remains peripheral in political philosophy.\r\n\r\nThis is curious where a majority of the world\u2019s population arguably lives in federal states and\r\nclaims about the \u2018nature\u2019 of federalism are central to ongoing political debates within and across\u00a0states (e.g., the relationship between the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Scotland\u00a0post-Brexit or federal, state, and municipal disagreements on immigration, gun control, and\/or\u00a0health care in the United States). Such appeals are common not only in politics, but also in\u00a0theory and law. Indeed, \u2018federalism\u2019 is said to be a basic constitutional principle in Canada, but\u00a0the nature of this principle remains opaque absent analytical scrutiny of what federalism entails.\r\n\r\nAppeals to the nature or purpose of federalism rely on implicit assumptions about the purposes\u00a0and necessary features of federalism that would benefit from analyst not only by theorists, but\r\nalso by political philosophers. Consider, for instance, claims that \u2018federalism\u2019 is an idea, rather\u00a0than a set of institutions, committed to a combination of unity and diversity or claims that\u00a0federalism requires \u2018co-operation\u2019 between the constituent parts of a federal states. Whether\u00a0these claims are (a) philosophically justifiable and (b) consonant with the empirical findings\u00a0about federalism requires greater scrutiny. There is even reason to question whether \u2018federalism\u2019\u00a0is an \u2018idea\u2019 over and above a set of institutional arrangements or a descriptor for institutional\u00a0arrangements. These issues may be primary over now more central institutional design questions.\u00a0Whether institutions must be designed to promote a federal idea or are federal when sharing\r\ncertain features regardless of their intended ends is key to evaluating institutional proposals.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of this workshop is to work on a modern philosophy of federalism. To this end, the\u00a0contributors will examine whether there is a clear \u2018idea\u2019 of federalism that can explain the\u00a0nstitutional forms that are often described as \u2018federalist\u2019 and whether that idea can serve as the\u00a0basis of justifiable political arrangements. As part of this analysis, they will explore the potential\u00a0ends of federalism, implicit commitments in the federal \u2018idea\u2019, and whether they can plausibly\u00a0combine with each other and with the institutional arrangements found in federal states. If\u00a0successful, this analysis should contribute to future debates on the institutions and processes of\r\nfederal law and politics and help decision-makers better evaluate appeals to the federal idea.\r\n\r\nWe would appreciate if scholars interested in contributing to this workshop would submit\u00a0abstracts prepared for anonymous review to manceptfederalism@gmail.com<\/a> by 15 May 2021<\/strong>.\u00a0Selected participants may be asked to submit a draft paper and must register prior to the event.","_et_gb_content_width":"","_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2173","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2173","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4408"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2173"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2173\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2619,"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2173\/revisions\/2619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}