The Challenges of Digital Democracy, and How to Tackle Them in the Information Era

  • Ugo PagalloEmail author
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 134)


Scholars examine legal hard cases either in the name of justice, or in accordance with the principle of tolerance. In the case of justice, scholars aim to determine the purposes that all the norms of the system are envisaged to fulfil. In the second case, tolerance is conceived as the right kind of foundational principle for the design of the right kinds of norms in the information era, because such norms have to operate across a number of different cultures, societies and states vis-à-vis an increasing set of issues that concern the whole infrastructure and environment of current information and communication technology-driven societies. Yet the information revolution is triggering an increasing set of legal cases that spark general disagreement among scholars: Matters of accessibility and legal certainty, equality and fair power, protection and dispute resolution, procedures and compliance, are examples that stress what is new under the legal sun of the information era. As a result, justice needs tolerance in order to attain the reasonable compromises that at times have to be found in the legal domain. Yet, tolerance needs justice in order to set its own limits and determine whether a compromise should be deemed as reasonable.


Justice Tolerance Hard legal case analysis Information and communication technologies Information ethics Paradoxes of tolerant rules 


  1. Ahmed, Nafeez. 2015. How the CIA made Google (Part I) & Why Google made the NSA (Part II), at and Last accessed 15 Mar 2015.
  2. Bingham, Tom. 2010. The rule of law. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Bobbio, Norberto. 2014. The future of democracy. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Castells, Manuel. 2005. Global governance and global politics. Political Science and Politics 38: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durante, Massimo. 2015. The democratic governance of information societies. A critique to the theory of stakeholders. Philosophy and Technology 28 (1): 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworkin, Ronald. 1985. A matter of principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Floridi, Luciano. 2013. The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2014. Toleration and the design of norms. Science and Engineering Ethics, (October): 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  11. Keohane, Robert O. 2003. Global governance and democratic accountability. In Global governance and democratic accountability, ed. D. Held and M. Koening-Archibugi. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mueller, Milton L. 2010. Networks and states: The global politics of internet governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pagallo, Ugo. 2012. Cracking down on autonomy: Three challenges to design in IT law. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (4): 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2013. The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2015a. The realignment of the sources of the law and their meaning in an information society. Philosophy & Technology 28 (1): 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2015b. Good onlife governance: On law, spontaneous orders, and design. In The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era, ed. L. Floridi, 161–177. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2015c. Cyber force and the role of sovereign states in informational warfare. Philosophy & Technology 28 (3): 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2017a. The legal challenges of big data: Putting secondary rules first in the field of EU data protection. European Data Protection Law Review 3 (1): 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2017b. The broken promises of democracy in the information era. In Digital democracy in a globalized world, ed. C. Prints, C. Cuijpers, P.L. Lindseth, and M. Rosina, 77–99. Cheltenham: Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pagallo, Ugo, and Massimo Durante. 2016a. The philosophy of law in an information society. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of information, ed. L. Floridi, 396–407. Oxon/New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2016b. The pros and cons of legal automation, and its governance. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7 (2): 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popper, Karl R. 2013 The open society and its enemies. New introduction by Alan Ryan, essay by E.H. Gombrich, single volume ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Reed, Chris. 2012. Making laws for cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shapiro, Scott J. 2007. The ‘Hart-Dworkin’ debate: A short guide for the perplexed, Public law and legal theory working paper series, 77. Michigan Law School.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di GiurisprudenzaUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations