ºÚÁϳԹÏ×ÊÔ´

Silje A. Langvatn er førsteamanuensis i politisk filosofi ved Senter for vitskapsteori (SVT). Ho har tidlegare hatt stilling som postdoktor ved SVT, postdoktor og forsker ved , Law & Philosophy fellow ved (2016) og Visiting Fellow ved (2009).

• Arrangør av workshopen New Perspectives on Legitimacy, University of Leiden, Leiden, 30 okt og 1 nov. 2024
• Gjesteforelesing, "What is it we disagree about when we disagree about the legitimacy of an institution?" Political Science Department, Trinity College, 4. oktober 2024
• Arrangør av workshop om proporsjonalitetsvurderingar i samarbeid med PluriCourts. Bergen, 6. og 7. juli 2023
• Innlegg: Academic freedom imaginaries, under SVT sitt . Bergen, 23.09.2022
• Medarrangør og bidragsytar til workshop: Arrangert i samarbeid med Eirik Holmøyvik med støtte frÃ¥ og Juridisk fakultet (ºÚÁϳԹÏ×ÊÔ´). Bergen, 10.05.2022
• Innlegg pÃ¥ SVT sitt symposium: What makes corona measures justifiable? Bergen, 03.12.2021
• . Saka nemner bl.a. debatten Langvatn og Sunde sette i gang i Klassekampen om klimarettsaka i Høgsterett. 3.12.2020
•  

Emneansvarlig VITHF900 Vitenskapsteori og Etikk for PhD-kandidatar ved Humanistisk Fakultet og Griegakademiet

Forelesingar på VITSV900 Vitenskapsteori og Etikk for PhD-kandidatar ved Samfunnsvitenskapelig fakultet

Forelesingar på MNF490 Vitenskapsteori for PhD-kandidatar ved MatNat-fakultetet

Nyaste publikasjonar

Langvatn, S.A. (2024) . Philosophy & Social Criticism 2024 s. -
ºÚÁϳԹÏ×ÊÔ´ 

This article is part of a special issue on Frank I. Michelman's recent book (2022). It examines Michelman's interpretation of Rawls two conceptions of legitimacy –"The Liberal principle of legitimacy" and the later "Idea of political legitimacy based on the criterion of reciprocity" – and argues that Michelman's offers an interesting interpretation which suceeds in bringing out the distinctly institutional and practice-dependent nature of Rawls' way of understanding legitimacy. However, I go on to argue that Michelman's interpretation is too proceduralistic, and that it fails to grasp the most interesting developments in Rawls' latest conception of legitimacy (Rawls 1996-1997).

Langvatn, S.A. & Holst, C. (2022) Constellations 00, 1– 16

When mistakes are made in political life, a standard remedy is to find someone to hold to account. But when experts who take part in governance make mistakes, they are seldom the ones who are held to account. So, is the solution to make these «unaccountable experts» more accountable? Not so quick, we argue. Case: The severe expert mistakes made in the preparation of the impact assessment report for opening the South Eastern Barents Sea for petroleum activity.

Holst, C., & Langvatn, S. A. (2021). Journal of Social Philosophy, 00, 1– 18

In a new article, Cathrine Holst and I revisit Mansbridge's article, "Should Blacks Represent Blacks, and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes" (Jane Mansbridge 1999), which presented a systematic framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of such descriptive representation. Mansbridge developed her framework with elected assemblies in mind.

We look at how the calculus changes when the question is descriptive representation of women in international courts. For this type of institution, we argue, some of the costs of descriptive representation become costlier, and some of the benefits become weaker.