Speaker: Kenneth Tomer (NYU) & Meir Yarom (University of Sydney)
Abstract: A prevailing view in jurisprudence holds that states necessarily claim legitimate authority. We understand this claim as entailing two independent claims: a claim to rule and a claim to legitimacy. Theorists have focused on what legitimacy requires or entails. We focus on the claim to rule, understood as a claim to ultimate superiority. We explain that states cannot conclusively ‘prove’ their ultimate superiority but merely claim it. Next, because it is merely a claim, different actors can challenge the state’s claim to rule, and, therefore, undermine its authority. Such challenges manifest themselves in exercising power over the state’s subjects, in a manner that the state cannot ultimately control. To retain its claim to rule in light of a challenge, the state ought to respond. What counts as an adequate response depends, among others, on the nature of the challenge and the kind of governance system at hand. So, complementing existing theory, we argue that authority entails a claim to rule, manifested as a claim to ultimate superiority; A claim to rule can be challenged, and ought to be backed. Turning from theory to practice, our theory neatly captures several historical and recent political occurrences. Finally, we develop a more provocative argument: by agglomerating powers over individuals, several Big Tech companies challenge modern states’ claim to rule; And by introducing sweeping regulations against those companies, states are responding to such challenges.
You can find the links to Kenneth and Yarom's paper and to the meeting below:
The Paper: https://bit.ly/cltdg-kenneth_yarom-draft
The Zoom link: https://bit.ly/cltdg-michaelmas23-1
You can follow us on Twitter: https://bit.ly/cambridgeltdg or check out our web-page: https://bit.ly/cltdgweb
Subscribe to our mailing-list for getting regular updates and session materials: https://bit.ly/cltdgmaillist
Facebook 
X/Twitter 
Instagram 
YouTube 
Flickr 
LinkedIn