Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojève on Tyranny and Theory

Author(s):  
David McIlwain
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1850064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Howse

WTO jurisprudence and governance will not be explicit subjects of discussion or negotiation at the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting, with the partial exception of dispute settlement review. Nonetheless, governance questions are at the heart of debates about the WTO’s legitimacy and deserve serious consideration. With this mind, a checklist and a series of questions are provided that are deemed to be relevant to the immediate future of the WTO and the ultimate fate of the Doha Round negotiations. Several issues are raised, as follows. The architecture of the WTO as represented in the “Single Undertaking” requires all WTO Members to adhere to the WTO Agreement even when doing so may not always be in a country’s interest. Decision-making in the WTO is based on consensus, and there may be a need for the design of more effective procedures and for better representation of the different views of Members. The accountability of the WTO as an institution may be at issue insofar as it relates to the roles of different members and the relationships with civil society. There is a clear need for technical assistance, policy development, and policy surveillance to make the WTO a more open, transparent, efficient, equitable, and socially responsible institution. Robert Howse is Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. His research and teaching interests are focused on international economic law (trade, investment and finance) and legal and political philosophy (theorizing law and governance beyond the state, and especially the thought of Alexandre Kojeve and Leo Strauss). His recent books include The Regulation of International Trade, Third Edition, co-authored with Michael J. Trebilcock, to be released this month in the US; The Federal Vision, co-edited with Kalypso Nicolaidis (2001); and Alexandre Kojeve Outline of a Phenomenology of Right (2000), co-translator with Bryan Frost and principal author of the interpretative commentary. Howse has also authored or co-authored opinion essays in general interest publications such as The Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, Policy Review, and Legal Affairs. He is series editor of the Oxford Commentaries on WTO Law and serves on the editorial advisory board of the European Journal of International Law. He has also been a reporter on WTO law for the American Law Institute. For part of the fall 2005 semester, Howse has been a visiting instructor at the University of Paris I (Pantheon-Sorbonne).



2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Manent*

Résumé Le xxe siècle a vu le dépérissement de la philosophie politique. L’une des raisons de ce dépérissement fut l’adoption presque générale de la distinction wébérienne entre faits et valeurs. En s’appuyant uniquement sur cette distinction, il est impossible de porter un jugement sur l’expérience politique par excellence du siècle dernier, soit le totalitarisme. L’échec des tentatives philosophiques les plus autorisées (Hannah Arendt) pour rendre intelligible ce phénomène s’explique aussi par l’abandon de la notion traditionnelle de régime politique. Seul Leo Strauss a tenté de ressaisir le sens authentique de la philosophie politique en maintenant vivante cette notion et en refusant l’historicisme. Le dialogue de L. Strauss avec Alexandre Kojève ouvre en outre la voie à une réflexion sur le lien énigmatique entre la démocratie moderne et le totalitarisme. Ce lien énigmatique touche la question de la volonté du peuple et de son incarnation dans un corps politique. Comment le principe spirituel démocratique peut-il donner forme et vie à un corps politique ? La tâche de la philosophie politique est d’éclairer cette dialectique entre le « corps » de la société prédémocratique et l’» âme » de la politique démocratique.



DoisPontos ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Simões
Keyword(s):  

questão do bom governante pode ser analisada a partir da perspectiva conservadora,que pretende retomar os ensinamentos da filosofia política antiga, bem como deum ponto de vista em defesa do projeto moderno. Leo Strauss e Alexandre Kojève propuseram-se, cada qual à sua maneira, o desafio de encontrar no diálogo Hierão de Xenofonte osaspectos “tirânicos” que, por um lado, aprimoram e, por outro, rebaixam a possível realizaçãode uma vida política perfeita. Nosso objetivo aqui é percorrer a polêmica dessedebate entre amigos que sustentam posições distintas, porém, complementares.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document