[Review of] A Pluralist Theory of Constitutional Justice. Assessing Liberal Democracy in Times of Rising Populism and Illiberalism

Research output: Contribution to journalBook/Film/Article reviewpeer-review

Abstract

A Pluralist Theory of Constitutional Justice. Assessing Liberal Democracy in Times of Rising Populism and Illiberalism advances a theoretically rich and extremely engaging case for the suitability of liberal constitutionalism to achieve justice in contemporary globalised and pluralistic societies. While acknowledging that actual liberal constitutional models have oftentimes failed to effectively address some of the most significant challenges of our time, the book offers a valuable contribution to the debate by shedding light on the potential of liberal constitutionalism, when taken in its ‘ideal’ form, as well as its conceptual superiority over competitors such as illiberalism, populism, and authoritarianism. In doing so, the author Michel Rosenfeld relies on the notion of comprehensive pluralism as a conception of the good in its own right that ought to be incorporated within liberal constitutionalism in order to secure and improve the ability of the latter to meet the demands of justice. While the author's case for comprehensive pluralism is extremely compelling, the connection that the book seeks to establish between the requirements of justice under comprehensive pluralism and the liberal constitutional model requires further discussion.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)136-156
Number of pages21
JournalAthena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 May 2024

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • liberal constitutionalism
  • comprehensive pluralism
  • constitutional theory
  • distributive justice

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '[Review of] A Pluralist Theory of Constitutional Justice. Assessing Liberal Democracy in Times of Rising Populism and Illiberalism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this