@article{MTMT:36857217,
	title = {Autonomy and Legitimacy: An Internal Refutation of Consent Theory},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/36857217},
	author = {Brinkmann, Matthias},
	doi = {10.1215/00318108-12240672},
	journal-iso = {PHILOS REV},
	journal = {PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW},
	volume = {135},
	unique-id = {36857217},
	issn = {0031-8108},
	abstract = {Consent theory claims that political legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed. The theory has been marginalized in political philosophy due to the success of Hume’s objections, which observe that consent theory entails anarchism, as almost nobody has consented to be governed. However, these standard objections leave the foundations of consent theory untouched; the consent theorist, confident in the appeal of these foundations, can endorse anarchism in response. This article offers an objection that focuses on what makes consent normatively appealing in the first place, the value of individual autonomy. On almost any plausible reading of that foundation, one should not be a consent theorist.},
	year = {2026},
	eissn = {1558-1470},
	pages = {1-36}
}

@book{MTMT:37134835,
	title = {The dilemma of authority},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/37134835},
	isbn = {1526193094},
	author = {Fives, Allyn},
	publisher = {Manchester University Press},
	unique-id = {37134835},
	year = {2026}
}

@article{MTMT:36934637,
	title = {What Model of Society do we Want? Democracy vs. Anarchy Vs.Totalitarianism},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/36934637},
	author = {Valerica, Madalina Virgolici},
	journal = {Gaudeamus Journal of Law and International Governance},
	volume = {1},
	unique-id = {36934637},
	issn = {3120-1016},
	year = {2026},
	pages = {35-51}
}

@article{MTMT:34754928,
	title = {From depoliticization to politicization. three periods of thinking politically with Carl Schmitt in Hungary},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34754928},
	author = {Gyulai, Attila and Pócza, Kálmán},
	doi = {10.1080/13569317.2024.2331498},
	journal-iso = {J POL IDEOL},
	journal = {JOURNAL OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES},
	volume = {25},
	unique-id = {34754928},
	issn = {1356-9317},
	abstract = {The article connects the much discussed recent political develop-ments in Hungary under Viktor Orbán with the dynamics between depoliticization and politicization guiding the local reception of Carl Schmitt’s works. Recent developments in Hungarian politics have been widely researched, but mostly without giving due atten-tion to political thinking. The article argues that the reception of Schmitt’s works, both in academia and in public discourse, has significantly influenced political thinking in Hungary throughout the 20th century and in recent decades. By reading the history of reception, the article aims to confirm that depoliticization and politicization are not diametrically opposed in the sense that the former stands for the elimination of politics. Rather, depoliticization and politicization follow from each other, as Schmitt himself described the impossibility of neutralizing politics. Beginning with the 1920s, this article examines three periods of Schmitt’s reception and shows that, after attempts of depoliticization, Schmitt was increasingly acknowledged as an author who argues for an overtly politicized account of politics. In terms of political thinking, this last development has defined the context of Hungarian politics since the 2010s.},
	year = {2025},
	eissn = {1469-9613},
	pages = {728-747},
	orcid-numbers = {Gyulai, Attila/0000-0003-2471-6049; Pócza, Kálmán/0000-0002-4853-017X}
}

@article{MTMT:36117560,
	title = {Freedom, the State, and Revolution：The Ideological Confrontation Between Marx and Engels and Anarchist Thought},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/36117560},
	author = {Song, Chengwen and XU, Xinyu},
	doi = {10.63802/grhas.v1.i1.5},
	journal-iso = {GRHAS},
	journal = {Global Review of Humanities, Arts, and Society},
	volume = {1},
	unique-id = {36117560},
	abstract = {In the 19th century, as socialist movements proliferated across Europe, anarchism emerged as both a theoretical and political adversary to Marxism. This paper critically examines the ideological divergences between Marx and Engels and two key figures in anarchist thought—Max Stirner and Mikhail Bakunin. Stirner’s egoist anarchism, rooted in philosophical idealism, is analyzed and contrasted with Marx's materialist conception of the individual and freedom. Bakunin’s political anarchism, which advocated the immediate abolition of the state, is likewise critiqued through the lens of historical materialism and proletarian revolution. Drawing upon textual analysis and modern theoretical perspectives, the paper reveals how Marx and Engels defended a historically grounded path to liberation in opposition to anarchism's abstract and often utopian notions of freedom. Ultimately, the Marxist critique not only refutes the ideological premises of anarchism but also articulates a revolutionary praxis rooted in class struggle and collective emancipation.},
	year = {2025},
	eissn = {3052-539X},
	pages = {14-24}
}

@article{MTMT:35188858,
	title = {Political Ethics in Illiberal Regimes: A Realist Interpretation. Zoltán Gábor Szűcs (2023). Political Ethics in Illiberal Regimes: A Realist Interpretation. Manchester University Press},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/35188858},
	author = {Pál, Gábor},
	doi = {10.17356/ieejsp.v10i1.1302},
	journal-iso = {INTERSECTIONS (HU)},
	journal = {INTERSECTIONS: EAST EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIETY AND POLITICS},
	volume = {10},
	unique-id = {35188858},
	abstract = {Hardball politics becomes a fundamental, everyday experience for hundreds of millions of people living in illiberal regimes. The perception, insight, understanding, interpretation, treatment and coping with the ‘ethics for playing hardball’ becomes a practical challenge for political actors (elected officials, MPs, mayors, policy experts, journalists, political commentators, political advisors, civil servants, civil activists, citizens) and a theoretical challenge for political scientists living in illiberal regimes. Acknowledging the author’s ambition, we can say that Szűcs perceives, undertakes, and in his monograph carries out this scholarly task, filling an important hiatus in the Hungarian political science discourse.},
	keywords = {illiberal regimes; political ethics; Hardball politics; Political-ethical challenges},
	year = {2024},
	eissn = {2416-089X},
	pages = {216-222},
	orcid-numbers = {Pál, Gábor/0000-0001-7868-7971}
}

@article{MTMT:34442815,
	title = {From right to might, and back: Functional legitimacy as a realist value},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/34442815},
	author = {Burelli, Carlo and Destri, Chiara},
	doi = {10.1177/01914537231215729},
	journal-iso = {PHIL SOC CRITIC},
	journal = {PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL CRITICISM: INTERNATIONAL, INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL},
	volume = {0},
	unique-id = {34442815},
	issn = {0191-4537},
	abstract = {For political realists, legitimacy is a central requirement for the desirability of political institutions. Their detractors contend that it is either descriptive, and thus devoid of critical potential, or it relies on some moralist value that realists reject. We defend a functionalist reading of realist legitimacy: descriptive legitimacy, that is, the capacity of a political institution to generate beliefs in its right to rule as opposed to commanding through coercion alone, is desirable in virtue of its functional role. First, descriptive legitimacy plays an evaluative role: Institutions can fail to convince citizens that they have a right to rule and can be ranked by how well they do so. Second, descriptive legitimacy plays a normative role, because if an institution fails to convince subjects of its right to rule, this gives them a reason not to comply with its directives, even if it satisfies philosophers’ standards for possessing such right.},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1461-734X},
	pages = {1},
	orcid-numbers = {Burelli, Carlo/0000-0001-7012-2669}
}

@article{MTMT:33662523,
	title = {A Realist Membership Account of Political Obligation},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/33662523},
	author = {Szűcs-Zágoni, Zoltán Gábor},
	doi = {10.1007/s10677-023-10372-6},
	journal-iso = {ETHICAL THEORY MORAL PRACT},
	journal = {ETHICAL THEORY AND MORAL PRACTICE},
	volume = {26},
	unique-id = {33662523},
	issn = {1386-2820},
	abstract = {The paper offers a realist account of political obligation. More precisely, it offers an account that belongs to the Williamsian liberal strain of contemporary realist theory (as opposed to a Geussian radical realist strain) and draws on and expands some ideas familiar from Bernard Williams’s oeuvre (thick/thin ethical concepts, political realism/moralism, a minimal normative threshold for distinctively political rule). Accordingly, the paper will claim that the fact of membership in a polity provides people with sufficient reason for complying with those political authority claims whose source is that particular polity. The paper will explain that membership in a polity is constituted not by communitarian identification (Horton), nationhood (Tamir), joined commitment/plural subjectivity (Gilbert), but by the fact that people are stably exposed to political authority claims associated with a particular polity which they find making sense as passing the minimal normative threshold for a distinctively political form of rule (as opposed to the rule of terror or sheer coercion). This political-ethical phenomenon is widely known as political obligation but the paper will argue that the label is in fact a misnomer because it does not refer to a generic obligation. The implications of this account are manifold but two seem especially important: first, the notion of political obligation makes sense even beyond the realm of moralist political theory and, second, realist political theory should pay more attention to the problem of compliance than it used to do.},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {1572-8447},
	pages = {635-650},
	orcid-numbers = {Szűcs-Zágoni, Zoltán Gábor/0000-0001-6595-5463}
}

@article{MTMT:35073453,
	title = {Politikai kötelezettségek az állampolgárságon túl. Hogyan magyarázhatók a nem állampolgárok politikai kötelezettségei?},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/35073453},
	author = {Ujlaki, Anna},
	doi = {10.30718/POLTUD.HU.2023.1.59},
	journal-iso = {POLTUD SZLE},
	journal = {POLITIKATUDOMÁNYI SZEMLE},
	volume = {32},
	unique-id = {35073453},
	issn = {1216-1438},
	abstract = {A politikai kötelezettségek problémája a politikaelmélet klasszikus témái közé tartozik. Az egyén szabadsága és az állam autoritása közötti feszültség máig nem hagyja nyugodni a politikaelmélet művelőit. Amellett, hogy valamennyi elméletnek meg kell küzdenie sajátos belső nehézségeivel, válaszolniuk kell a filozófiai anarchisták által megfogalmazott kihívásokra, amelyek arra irányulnak, hogy rámutassanak, az államnak való engedelmeskedést igazolni igyekvő elméletek mind sikertelenek. A tanulmány azt vizsgálja, a politikai kötelezettségek mely megközelítése képes magyarázni azoknak a felmerülő kötelezettségeit is, akik nem tagjai a politikai közösségnek, valamint hogyan válhatnak ezek a személyek kötelezetté. Ez a kérdésfeltevés marginális a téma szakirodalmában, mivel a politikai filozófia jellemzően az állam és az állampolgár viszonyában igyekszik megragadni a politikai kötelezettségekhez hasonló kérdéseket. Ez az egyszerűsítés kényelmes lehet az érvelés szempontjából, ugyanakkor a valódi társadalmi viszonyainkat tekintve egyáltalán nem tűnik megkerülhetetlennek az a kétségívül nem könnyű kérdés, hogy mit tudunk a közösségben tagságot nem élvezők politikai kötelezettségeiről. A tanulmány kétféleképp igyekszik hozzájárulni a politikai kötelezettségek irodalmához. Egyrészről a politikai kötelezettség elméleteit egy új módon, a politikai közösség modellje alapján osztályozza, másrészt rámutat, mely megközelítések a legalkalmasabbak a nem állampolgárok politikai kötelezettségeinek magyarázatára.},
	year = {2023},
	eissn = {2064-6550},
	pages = {59-79},
	orcid-numbers = {Ujlaki, Anna/0000-0002-8030-624X}
}