Antoinette Scherz

• Arlen, Gordon; Scherz, Antoinette & Vestergren, Martin (2023). New perspectives on the legitimacy of international institutions and power. Journal of Social Philosophy. ISSN 0047-2786. doi: 10.1111/josp.12554. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Scherz, Antoinette (2023). Applying Different Concepts and Conceptions of Legitimacy to the International Level: Service, Free Group Agents, and Autonomy. Moral Philosophy and Politics. ISSN 2194-5616. doi: 10.1515/mopp-2022-0046. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Scherz, Antoinette (2023). How Should Personal and Political Autonomy Feature in the ECtHR’s Margin of Appreciation? Jus Cogens. A Critical Journal of Philosophy of Law and Politics. ISSN 2524-3977. 5, s. 149–179. doi: 10.1007/s42439-023-00079-8. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Scherz, Antoinette (2022). You can't tell me what to do! Why should states comply with international institutions? Journal of Social Philosophy. ISSN 0047-2786. doi: 10.1111/josp.12503. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Sandven, Hallvard & Scherz, Antoinette (2022). Rescue Missions in the Mediterranean and the Legitimacy of the EU’s Border Regime. Res Publica. ISSN 1356-4765. doi: 10.1007/s11158-022-09550-7.
• Zysset, Alain Fabio & Scherz, Antoinette (2021). Proportionality as procedure: Strengthening the legitimate authority of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Global Constitutionalism. ISSN 2045-3817. 10(3), s. 524–546. doi: 10.1017/S2045381721000071.
• Scherz, Antoinette (2019). Tying legitimacy to political power: Graded legitimacy standards for international institutions. European Journal of Political Theory. ISSN 1474-8851. s. 1–23. doi: 10.1177/1474885119838137. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Adams, N.P.; Scherz, Antoinette & Schmelzle, Cord (2019). Legitimacy beyond the state: institutional purposes and contextual constraints. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP). ISSN 1369-8230. 23(3), s. 281–291. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2019.1565710. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Scherz, Antoinette & Zysset, Alain (2019). The UN Security Council, Normative Legitimacy and the Challenge of Specificity. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP). ISSN 1369-8230. 23(3), s. 371–391. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2019.1565720. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This paper discusses how the general and abstract concept of legitimacy applies to international institutions, using the United Nations Security Council as an example. We argue that the evaluation of the Security Council’s legitimacy requires considering three significant and interrelated aspects: its purpose, competences, and procedural standards. We consider two possible interpretations of the Security Council’s purpose: on the one hand, maintaining peace and security, and, on the other, ensuring broader respect for human rights. Both of these purposes are minimally morally acceptable for legitimacy. Second, we distinguish between three different competences of the UNSC: 1) the decision-making competence, 2) the quasi-legislative competence, and 3) the referral competence. On this basis, we argue that different procedural standards are required to legitimise these competences, which leads to a more differentiated understanding of the Security Council’s legitimacy. While maintaining that the membership structure of the Council is a severe problem for its legitimacy, we suggest other procedural standards that can help to improve its overall legitimacy, which include broad transparency, deliberation, and the revisability of the very terms of accountability themselves.

• Scherz, Antoinette (2018). Representation in Multilateral Democracy: How to Represent Individuals in the EU While Guaranteeing the Mutual Recognition of Peoples. European Law Journal. ISSN 1351-5993. 23(6), s. 495–508. doi: 10.1111/eulj.12267. Vis sammendrag

  The democratic criteria for representation in the European Union are complex since its representation involves several delegation mechanisms and institutions. This paper develops institutional design principles for the representation of peoples and individuals and suggests reform options of the European Union on the basis of the theory of multilateral democracy. In particular, it addresses how the equality of individuals can be realised in EU representation while guaranteeing the mutual recognition of peoples. Unlike strict intergovernmental insti- tutions, the EU requires an additional and independent legislative chamber in which individuals are directly repre- sented. However, strict equality of individuals cannot be the guiding principle for this chamber. In order to avoid the overruling of peoples through supranational majorities, it is necessary to bind the chamber's composi- tion by a principle of degressive proportionality. The representation of peoples, on the other hand, needs to be connected to their domestic democratic institutions.

• Scherz, Antoinette & Welge, Rebecca (2015). Union Citizenship Revisited: Multilateral Democracy as Normative Standard for European Citizenship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. ISSN 1369-183X. 41(8), s. 1254–1275. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.969202. Vis sammendrag

  Union Citizenship as currently implemented in the European Union introduces a distinct concept of citizenship that necessitates an adequate normative approach. The objective of this paper is to assess EU Citizenship against the theoretical background of multilateral democracy. This approach is specifically suited for this task, as it does not rely on a nation-state paradigm or the presumption of a further transformation into a federation or union. We propose three criteria by which to assess multilevel citizenship: equal individual rights, equal sovereignty of peoples and the balancing of individuals' and peoples' interests. We argue that the current practice of Union Citizenship does not fully meet the proposed standards, regarding equal rights within and equal access to, the political system. Based on our assessment, we propose reform options of access to national and supranational citizenship and argue for supranational participation rights and equal transnational rights to gradually re-establish full membership for individuals.

• Scherz, Antoinette (2013). The Legitimacy of the Demos: Who Should Be Included in the Demos and on What Grounds? Living Reviews in Democracy. ISSN 1663-0165. 4, s. 1–14. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Despite being fundamental to democracy, the normative concept of the people, i.e. the demos, is highly unclear. This article clarifies the legitimacy of the demos’ boundaries by structuring the debate into three strains of justification: first, normative membership principles; second, its democratic functionality and the necessity of cohesion for this essential function; and third, a procedural understanding of the demos. It will be shown that normative principles can only justify its expansion towards the ideal of an unbounded demos. On the other hand, the democratic function of the demos can be understood as a criterion for its restriction. This, however, is only possible on the basis of an existing polity and not for the initial constitution of the demos. Consequently, a legitimate demos has to take both inclusionary and exclusionary tendencies into account. These tendencies need to be weighed against each other in the democratic process, which leads to a fundamentally procedural understanding of the legitimacy of the demos

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Adams, N.P.; Scherz, Antoinette & Schmelzle, Cord (2021). Legitimacy Beyond the State: Normative and Conceptual Questions. Routledge. ISBN 9780367694975.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Scherz, Antoinette; Adams, N.P. & Schmelzle, Cord (2020). Legitimacy Beyond the State: Institutional Purposes and Contextual Constraints. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP). ISSN 1369-8230. 23(3).
• Scherz, Antoinette (2019). Does Transnational Voting Increase National Sovereignty or Democracy? EUI Working Papers, Robert schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. ISSN 1028-3625. 25, s. 27–30. Vis sammendrag

  Joachim Blatter argues that the increase in bi- and multilateral forms of rule-making might lead to either technocratic intergovernmentalism or populist nationalism. Therefore, he suggests transnationalising the voting in national parliamentary elections. Blatter worries that representative democracy in national states has been hollowed out by technocratic forms of intergovernmental rule-making. Yet, is this also true of the European Union (EU)? Has the EU really hollowed out democracy within its member states, or is national sovereignty at stake instead? To begin, recall Rodrik’s globalisation trilemma, which claims that we can have (at most) two of the following three things: 1) international economic integration; 2) national sovereignty; 3) democracy. Given that one of the EU’s main aims has been economic integration, at least one of the other two will suffer.3 However, how we can have democracy without national sovereignty? Rodrik argues that under global federalism, democratic politics would not shrink. Rather, they would relocate. Equally in the EU, the restriction of national sovereignty might be paired with the relocation of democracy to the supranational and transnational level.4 In contrast to other international or multilateral rule-making institutions, the EU has debated the question of democratisation for decades; different measures have been taken to this end, such as the expansion of the European Parliament’s (EP) competences. In the EU, the issue is not so much democracy, but rather a loss of national sovereignty. The restriction of national sovereignty can also be normatively problematic, but this requires another argument besides the loss of democracy.

• Scherz, Antoinette (2014). Multilateral Democracy as Democratic Federalism beyond the State: Institutional Design in a Multilevel System. NCCR Democracy Working Papers. 78.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin