Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Cohen improves Teubner’s reflexive legal paradigm to insure the self-regulation stays in contact with society-wide formation of public opinion and legal principles. This article discusses Cohen’s paradigm and Sturm’s analysis of the sexual harassment issue as the second generation of labor discrimination, which is compatible to Cohen’s model. The author then illustrates how an improvement of Dworkin’s theory of adjudication that and the development of online dispute resolution can realize Cohen’s ideal

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Part of Porposed Panel on Public
Reason: Epistemology and Politics
Joshua Cohen has argued for an account of deliberative democracy
according to which democracy is a system of social and political
arrangements that institutionally ties the exercise of collective power
to free reasoning among equals. This account of deliberative democracy
is founded on the idea that in a well-ordered democracy, reasonable
citizens are willing to defend and criticize institutions in terms that
other reasonable citizens, as free and equal, have reasons to accept
given the fact of reasonable pluralism. Cohen gives three basic
arguments for this principle: an epistemological argument, a moral
argument and an argument from democratic values. In this paper, I want
to critique these three arguments Cohen offers for holding the
principle of reasonableness. I will conclude the paper with the worry
that Cohen’s conception of democracy brings with it some potentially
serious costs. According to this political ideal, the effective
participation of people who hold unreasonable views has no value and is
to be tolerated only on grounds of expediency (on the grounds that
there is a danger of excluding too many.) Their equal participation
does not have intrinsic worth. So the principle of reasonableness has a
serious potential for being anti-democratic in addition to the costs I
noted above.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: When I read Baudrillard calling out Michel Foucault, suggesting that the time of Foucault’s utility is passed, I am compelled to consider the challenge. The objective of this paper is to begin to thresh out a conversation centering on the question of who serves critical inquiry best, Foucault or Baudrillard. As will become clearer throughout the paper, Cohen’s performances offer a rich terrain for this conversation in that he presents a multiplicity of entrances.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Recently, Benjamin J. Cohen described a transatlantic divide between the British and American schools of international political economy (IPE) and pointed toward hopes that this divide could someday be bridged. This argument faced great criticism from both British and American school scholars. This article argues that this debate should be re-framed in a post-Kuhnian perspective that eschews the notion of incommensurable paradigms. From this Lakatosian perspective, Cohen’s argument represents an opportunity for theoretical progression within IPE. This essay argues that the main obstacles to engagement between the American and British schools are limitations imposed by logical inconsistencies in the American school’s open economy politics (OEP) research program. Therefore, this essay calls for changes in OEP’s theoretical hard core that will give OEP greater explanatory power while bringing the extra benefit of making it more accessible to British school scholars. This essay thus argues that, while the British and American schools may never agree on everything, it is possible to get them to engage one another even if it is in debate.