4 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (forthcoming). Leo Strauss–En Rasjonalistisk Irrasjonalist? Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (2013). Kant and Habermas on International Law. Ratio Juris 26 (2):302-324.
    The purpose of this article is to present a critical assessment of Jürgen Habermas' reformulation of Kant's philosophical project Toward Perpetual Peace. Special attention is paid to how well Habermas' proposed multi-level institutional model fares in comparison with Kant's proposal—a league of states. I argue that Habermas' critique of the league fails in important respects, and that his proposal faces at least two problems. The first is that it implies a problematic asymmetry between powerful and less powerful states. The second (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Øystein Lundestad & Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (2011). The Institutionalisation of International Law: On Habermas' Reformulation of the Kantian Project. Journal of International Political Theory 7 (1):40-62.
    The article sets out to explore the international legal dimension in Jürgen Habermas' latest publications on philosophy of law. It is our view that Habermas deals with the examination of just relations beyond the nation-state first and foremost from a legal perspective, and that the key to a Habermasian reading of international justice is not through an application of discourse-theoretical models of communicative or moral action as such, but primarily through proper legal institutionalisation of the rule of law. In asserting (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (2010). Testimony and Kant's Idea of Public Reason. Res Publica 16 (1):23-40.
    It is common to interpret Kant’s idea of public reason and the Enlightenment motto to ‘think for oneself’ as incompatible with the view that testimony and judgement of credibility is essential to rational public deliberation. Such interpretations have led to criticism of contemporary Kantian approaches to deliberative democracy for being intellectualistic, and for not considering our epistemic dependence on other people adequately. In this article, I argue that such criticism is insufficiently substantiated, and that Kant’s idea of public reason is (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation