БЛОКЧЕЙН КАК ИНСТИТУТ ПРОЦЕДУРНОЙ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТИ

Research outputpeer-review

Abstract

In the theory of public policy, it is essential to find a fair procedure that could be used to obtain an equitable result in the course of choosing and making public decisions. Blockchain, as a network of distributed registers, is often positioned as a political institution that ensures the fairness of decisions by voting on the basis of a pure procedure. Political theory distinguishes between pure, perfect and imperfect procedural justice. The last two types of procedural justice are based on the criterion of a fair result, which is achieved on the basis of a perfect and imperfect procedure. Pure procedural justice is indifferent to a certain resulting criterion; it can be used to solve any issues. This article analyzes the political ontology of the pure procedural justice of blockchain technology, which relies not on the legal nature of the constitution of interaction in the network, but on the technical and social immediacy of cooperation and joint production. These qualities of pure procedural justice in the blockchain, as shown in the article, are provided by the relevant protocols and create the conditions for maintaining a reputation, forming an autonomous identity and building a special trust regime. An equally fair consensus procedure based on reciprocity and autonomy is also important. The article proves that such an institutional configuration of the blockchain acts as an analog of the political concept of J. Rawls's justice as honesty. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of cases of using blockchain-voting on the platform "Active citizen" (Moscow).

Original languageRussian
Pages (from-to)88-99
Number of pages12
JournalPolis (Russian Federation)
Volume2018
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

justice
Rawls, J.
voting
political theory
political institution
reciprocity
ontology
fairness
reputation
constitution
public policy
autonomy
regime
citizen
interaction

Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

@article{8957792fdf9c4cbda052d4dc0b743ffc,
title = "БЛОКЧЕЙН КАК ИНСТИТУТ ПРОЦЕДУРНОЙ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТИ",
abstract = "In the theory of public policy, it is essential to find a fair procedure that could be used to obtain an equitable result in the course of choosing and making public decisions. Blockchain, as a network of distributed registers, is often positioned as a political institution that ensures the fairness of decisions by voting on the basis of a pure procedure. Political theory distinguishes between pure, perfect and imperfect procedural justice. The last two types of procedural justice are based on the criterion of a fair result, which is achieved on the basis of a perfect and imperfect procedure. Pure procedural justice is indifferent to a certain resulting criterion; it can be used to solve any issues. This article analyzes the political ontology of the pure procedural justice of blockchain technology, which relies not on the legal nature of the constitution of interaction in the network, but on the technical and social immediacy of cooperation and joint production. These qualities of pure procedural justice in the blockchain, as shown in the article, are provided by the relevant protocols and create the conditions for maintaining a reputation, forming an autonomous identity and building a special trust regime. An equally fair consensus procedure based on reciprocity and autonomy is also important. The article proves that such an institutional configuration of the blockchain acts as an analog of the political concept of J. Rawls's justice as honesty. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of cases of using blockchain-voting on the platform {"}Active citizen{"} (Moscow).",
keywords = "{"}Active citizen{"}, Autonomous identity, Blockchain, Collaboration, Procedural fairness, Reciprocity, Reputation, Trust, Автономная идентичность, Активный гражданин, блокчейн, Взаимность, Доверие, Процедурная справедливость, Репутация, Сотрудничество",
author = "Smorgunov, {Leonid Vladimirovich}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08",
language = "русский",
volume = "2018",
pages = "88--99",
journal = "ПОЛИС. ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ",
issn = "1026-9487",
publisher = "Редакция журнала ПОЛИС: Политические исследования",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - БЛОКЧЕЙН КАК ИНСТИТУТ ПРОЦЕДУРНОЙ СПРАВЕДЛИВОСТИ

AU - Smorgunov, Leonid Vladimirovich

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - In the theory of public policy, it is essential to find a fair procedure that could be used to obtain an equitable result in the course of choosing and making public decisions. Blockchain, as a network of distributed registers, is often positioned as a political institution that ensures the fairness of decisions by voting on the basis of a pure procedure. Political theory distinguishes between pure, perfect and imperfect procedural justice. The last two types of procedural justice are based on the criterion of a fair result, which is achieved on the basis of a perfect and imperfect procedure. Pure procedural justice is indifferent to a certain resulting criterion; it can be used to solve any issues. This article analyzes the political ontology of the pure procedural justice of blockchain technology, which relies not on the legal nature of the constitution of interaction in the network, but on the technical and social immediacy of cooperation and joint production. These qualities of pure procedural justice in the blockchain, as shown in the article, are provided by the relevant protocols and create the conditions for maintaining a reputation, forming an autonomous identity and building a special trust regime. An equally fair consensus procedure based on reciprocity and autonomy is also important. The article proves that such an institutional configuration of the blockchain acts as an analog of the political concept of J. Rawls's justice as honesty. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of cases of using blockchain-voting on the platform "Active citizen" (Moscow).

AB - In the theory of public policy, it is essential to find a fair procedure that could be used to obtain an equitable result in the course of choosing and making public decisions. Blockchain, as a network of distributed registers, is often positioned as a political institution that ensures the fairness of decisions by voting on the basis of a pure procedure. Political theory distinguishes between pure, perfect and imperfect procedural justice. The last two types of procedural justice are based on the criterion of a fair result, which is achieved on the basis of a perfect and imperfect procedure. Pure procedural justice is indifferent to a certain resulting criterion; it can be used to solve any issues. This article analyzes the political ontology of the pure procedural justice of blockchain technology, which relies not on the legal nature of the constitution of interaction in the network, but on the technical and social immediacy of cooperation and joint production. These qualities of pure procedural justice in the blockchain, as shown in the article, are provided by the relevant protocols and create the conditions for maintaining a reputation, forming an autonomous identity and building a special trust regime. An equally fair consensus procedure based on reciprocity and autonomy is also important. The article proves that such an institutional configuration of the blockchain acts as an analog of the political concept of J. Rawls's justice as honesty. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of cases of using blockchain-voting on the platform "Active citizen" (Moscow).

KW - "Active citizen"

KW - Autonomous identity

KW - Blockchain

KW - Collaboration

KW - Procedural fairness

KW - Reciprocity

KW - Reputation

KW - Trust

KW - Автономная идентичность

KW - Активный гражданин

KW - блокчейн

KW - Взаимность

KW - Доверие

KW - Процедурная справедливость

KW - Репутация

KW - Сотрудничество

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054678548&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08

DO - 10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08

M3 - статья

VL - 2018

SP - 88

EP - 99

JO - ПОЛИС. ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

JF - ПОЛИС. ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

SN - 1026-9487

IS - 5

ER -