000			01903naa a2200169uu 4500
001			6041310053021
003			OSt
005			20190211161014.0
008			060413s2006 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aMITZEN, Jennifer _924455
245	1	0	_aReading Habermas in Anarchy : _bMultilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres
260			_aNew York, NY : _bAmerican Political Science Association, _cAugust 2005
520	3		_aStates routinely justify their policies in interstate forums, and this reason-giving seems to serve a legitimating function. But how could this be? For Habermas and other global public sphere theorists, the exchange of reasons oriented toward understanding—communicative action—is central to public sphere governance, where political power is held accountable to those affected. But most global public sphere theory considers communicative action only among nonstate actors. Indeed, anarchy is a hard case for public spheres. The normative potential of communicative action rests on its instability: only where consensus can be undone by better reasons, through argument, can we say speakers are holding one another accountable to reason. But argument means disagreement, and especially in anarchy disagreement can mean violence. Domestically, the state backstops argument to prevent violence. Internationally, I propose that international society and publicity function similarly. Public talk can mitigate the security dilemma and enable interstate communicative action. Viewing multilateral diplomacy as a legitimation process makes sense of the intuition that interstate talk matters, while tempering a potentially aggressive cosmopolitanism.
773	0	8	_tAmerican Political Science Review _g99, 3, p. 401-417 _dNew York, NY : American Political Science Association, August 2005 _xISSN 0003-0554 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20060413 _b1005^b _cNatália
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c15552 _d15552
041			_aeng