• Although attendance at the conference and participating as session chairs or commentators will be open to all members of the profession, paper presenters must be early-career philosophers – basically, anyone who doesn’t have tenure (e.g. graduate students, post-docs, VAP, TT Assistant Profs, independent scholars, etc.)

• Due to the kinds of travel-funding issues that early-career philosophers often face, several paper sessions (the exact number of which will be determined later) will be reserved for Skype presentations in which the author will be projected, and field audience questions, in real time over the internet.

• Although commentators and audience members are encouraged to present objections to papers, a guiding aim of the conference will beconstructive criticism, i.e. helping authors to improve problems (e.g. by not only raising objections, but offering and discussing possible solutions).

• Because successfully navigating the publishing world is one of the most difficult capacities for early-career philosophers to develop, and typical conference-length papers are too short (3,000 words) to publish, we will welcome submissions the length of any typical journal article (20-30 pages double-spaced) — the aim being to help early-career philosophers develop full-length papers into publishable quality. As a rule of thumb, the longer the paper, the higher the standards for acceptance to the conference. Extremely long papers are discouraged.

• In order to defray costs of attendance (once again out of concern for the needs of early-career scholars), there will be no registration fee, and consequently no official banquet, snacks, etc. Tampa is awesome, and there are many affordable places to meet, eat, and congregate around the university.

• We hope to stream all talks live via the internet and, if time permits, take some audience questions from internet viewers by email.

To submit a paper to present at the PCPC, please email the following to marvan@ut.edu by July 1, 2013: (1) a blinded (i.e. anonymized) paper, (2) a separate title page with the author’s name, contract information, and brief paper abstract, and (3) a statement concerning whether you intend to attend the conference in person or only via Skype. Decision emails indicating whether your paper has been accepted will be sent out around August 1, 2013. Finally, please bear the following in mind:

1. In order to ensure that the conference is well-attended, there will be relatively few Skype sessions — so the probability that your paper will be accepted is higher should you state in your submission email that you can attend in person.
2. Submission of a paper comprises a tacit agreement to serve as a commentator or session chair should your paper be accepted and you accept the invitation to present.

1. Capitalism and Democracy

Modern political culture originated from the acknowledgement and guarantee of the fundamental rights of the individual: inalienable rights, literally meaning cannot be either purchased or sold. The tension between market society and democratic society, grounded on political rights of collective auto-determination, originates here. Fundamental rights are the limits and boundaries of any power. As Montesquieu taught, any power shall tend to abuse if it does not meet limitations. In times of de-regulation, inaugurated by the Thatcher and Reagan governments between the Seventies and Eighties of the last century, the abuses of economic power highly increased: the power of mysterious and anonymous forces, «markets», speculators; the power of the institutes of economic evaluation, the so-called rating agencies; the power of supranational economic institutions, the Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, all able to impose binding directives to governments. Economic power has become pervading, predominant, preponderant, until it started to dictate the laws to political power, actually to the power of making laws. Or even to replace political power. And it legitimised itself by showing up as a neutral power, devoted to the «natural» laws of economy which bear the capitalist system; as a «technical» power, anchored to the economic «science». Science or ideology? In recent times, criticisms and confutations were opposed to the «expert knowledge» of the supporters of the neoliberal economic science. Nevertheless, the nerve centres of economic power keep on dominating on the social arrangements and processes of political decision, emptying democracy of its power.

Teoria politica welcomes papers on the following topics:

• the return of the notion itself of capitalism and of new theories of capitalism;
• the manifold relationship between capitalism and fundamental rights;
• the multiple tensions between market society and democracy;
• the tension between technical choices and democratic political decisions.

2. Democracy or digital demagoguery?

«Digital democracy» and/or «electronic democracy» are wide formulas, which a notion with precise boundaries does not fit. These formulas refer to phenomena which are often heterogeneous and ambiguous. Some of these seem rather in contrast with the essential conditions of democracy, particularly with the principle of equality: not only the so-called digital divide, but the paucity and randomness of participation to political processes through the Internet make it difficult (for the moment?) to recognise as «democratic» the «digital» forms of exercising active citizenship, especially for the legitimacy of their outcomes. The widespread of the ICTs use, though, deeply oriented in a democratic direction the political dynamics in many parts of the world, like the great protest movements spread after 2011, some of which have been welcomed as a «fourth wave» of the global process of democratization. Nevertheless, several scholars doubt that political participation through the net and the use of ICTs could effectively cross the boundaries of protest as such: they doubt it could move from «counter democracy» (in the sense Rosanvallon meant) to democracy. Where this path was undertaken through original forms —i.e. the Movimento Cinque Stelle in Italy— the test raised many doubts: in particular, the joint risks of populism and personalism, of sectarian rejection and autocratic control do not seem to be avoided.

Teoria politica welcomes papers on the following topics:

• democratic virtues and limits of political participation through the net;
• digital democracy as claim for «very direct» democracy, or as a form of delegate democracy imposing a return to imperative mandate;
• opportunities and risks of a digital selection of the political class;
• unforeseen and/or undesired effects of hybridation attempts between digital and parliamentary democracy.

The submission procedure can be downloaded, in pdf format, in the next link

Deadline: November 30, 2013

Inaugural lecture

Brave New Horizons: Why Comparative Political Theory Now?

Professor Fred Dallmayr (University of Notre Dame)

Chair: Lord Bhikhu Parekh (University of Westminster)

Thursday 13 June 2013
18:00 – 20:00

Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS Main Building

All welcome, no registration required. Organised by the Comparative Political Thought Research Group, Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS University of London

Registration is now open for the 1st Sciences Po Political Theory Graduate Student Conference. The keynote of our first conference will be delivered by Joseph Raz, famous legal and political scholar. The conference will take place at the CEVIPOF (98, rue de l’Université, Paris), from June 20 to June 21st. The registration is free of charge, but you will have to send us an e-mail confirming your attendance at sciencespotheorygrad@gmail.com. We would appreciate it if you did this by June 15. More information about the details of the conference will be available in due time at the following address: http://www.cevipof.com/fr/graduatepoliticaltheory/conference/

Thursday, June 20 

9:30-10:30: Keynote Address (Joseph Raz: Law Through a Normative Lense)

11:00-12:30: Panel 1 — The Justification of Autonomy and Authority After Raz(Moderator: Alicia-Dorothy Mornington)

16:00-18:00: Panel 3 — Assessing the Limits of Political Association (Moderator: Benjamin Boudou)

‘Should Freedom of Association Imply a Right to Discriminate in Membership’ (Luise Papcke, Columbia University)

Friday, June 21st

10:00-12:00: Panel 4 — Political Theory in Practice (Moderators: Aurélia Bardon; Élise Rouméas)

‘Of Lemons and Lemonade: Assessing the Impact of Multiple Citizenship on Global Equality (Ana Tanasoca, University of Essex)

13:30-15:00: Panel 5 ­— Liberalism, Between Neutrality and Recognition (Moderator: Tom Theuns)

‘Is State Neutrality Possible Under Capitalism? A Critique of Liberal Neutrality on Matters of the Good Life’ (Sophia Chan, University of Hong Kong)

‘Recognition as Esteem and Its Adjudication’ (Francesco Chiesa, University of Wales)

15:30-17:30: Panel 6 — Non-Ideal Theory: The Contours of Wrongdoing and the Grounds for Coercion (Moderator: Denis Ramond)

‘Penal Torture or Penal Abolition?’ (Cléo Grimaldi, Georgia State University)

‘What Could Ground a Right to Procreate?’ (Erik Magnusson, Oxford University)

‘A Home for Dignity: Wrongdoing and Expressive Actions (Amneris Chaparro, University of Essex)

18:00-19:00: Closing Keynote (Ruwen Ogien: Neutrality Toward Non-Controversial Conceptions of The Good Life)

Full details here: http://bit.ly/york1yearpolphiljobs

The Department of Politics at the University of York would like to make two (2x) 12 month appointments to Teaching Fellowships in Political Philosophy.  You must have (or have nearly completed) a PhD in Politics, Philosophy or cognate subject by October 2013.

You will contribute to a range of Undergraduate and Postgraduate teaching, and research supervision, in particular making a significant contribution to teaching on the Department’s second year undergraduate module in Contemporary Political Philosophy, and, according to expertise, to the Department’s MA programmes in Political Philosophy. One Teaching Fellow will be required to deliver a third year module on Global Justice.

The posts arise from research awards won by Professor Matt Matravers, who has a Mid-Career Research Fellowship in 2013-14 from the Independent Social Research Foundation for a project on retributive justice, and by Dr Martin O’Neill, who has a grant from the Institute for New Economic Thinking for a project on the significance of inequality.

and

 Live Streaming on

 Philosophy and Public Issues Journal Website

One day launch workshop of the new series of *Philosophy and Public Issues*, an international journal of moral, political, legal and social philosophy edited by Sebastiano Maffettone (Lead Editor), Gianfranco Pellegrino (Executive Editor) and Michele Bocchiola (Managing Editor).

Chair: Sebastiano Maffettone (Luiss University of Rome)

Keynote Speaker: Jonathan Quong (University of Manchester)

Speakers: Elvio Baccarini (University of Rijeka), Ian Carter (University of Pavia), Ben Colburn (University of Glasgow), Stephen Holmes (New York University).

Venue: Aula Polivalente, Viale Romania 12, Rome.

Web-Venue: http://ppi.luiss.edz

The Symposium will begin at 10 am and will be broadcast live on the journal website. The new series of *Philosophy and Public Issues* will be presented.

Attendance is free.

For more information contact PPI Editors at editorppi@luiss.it.

“Methods in Political Theory”

Manchester Workshops in Political Theory
Tenth Annual Conference, 4-6 September 2013

Convenor: Jens Olesen (Oxford/LSE)

During the 1960s and 70s the methodological orthodoxy of enquiries into the study of political thought became the target of historical critique. Dissatisfied with analyses that masqueraded as historical theses, critics proposed alternative procedures they believed were more appropriate to interpretations of canonical texts. In reaction to the critique, political theorists turned inward, reflecting on the problem of how the canon should be reconstructed, thereby following in the footsteps of neighbouring disciplines such as philosophy and history, where hermeneutical issues had already been subjected to systematic investigation. Rather than trying to generate approaches distinctive to their enterprise, political theorists either ‘imported’ insights from the latter disciplines or expressed their aversion toward methodological debates.

This reluctance to talk about method has not changed much since. Indeed, some theorists consider methodological discussions as nothing but ‘continental’ charade. Aversion towards methodological debates is often based on the underlying assumption that we all know not only what we do, but also how we do it. Thus, questions of method are either bracketed out completely, or dealt with only in introductory chapters in order to engage with ‘more substantive’ issues. Yet method and substance are only analytically distinct: the way in which theorists choose to interpret a text is inextricably linked to the outcome of their analyses.

Abstracts of up to 500 words are requested for papers that aspire to discuss the term ‘method’ with reference to political theorizing, and/or to address one or more of the following approaches:

• ‘Methods’ of Textual Interpretation (for instance, Skinner, Strauss, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Derrida, Althusser)

• Genealogy (Nietzsche, Foucault)

• Conceptual history (Koselleck, Ball)

• Comparative Political Theory (Dallmayr, Godrej et al.)

• Gender Theory and Feminist ‘Interventions’ (Butler, Fraser)

• Critical Theory (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, Honneth)

• Deliberative democracy (Habermas, Benhabib) or Agonistic Pluralism (Mouffe, Honig, Connolly, Rancière)

• ‘Original Position’ (Rawls)

• Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory

• Studies of Ideology (Freeden, van Dijk)

• Marxian Political Theory

Please submit your abstract, along with your name and institutional affiliation to jens.olesen@politics.ox.ac.uk. Abstracts will be accepted on a rolling basis. The deadline for submissions is Friday 14 June 2013.

http://manceptworkshops2013.wordpress.com/

• Although attendance at the conference and participating as session chairs or commentators will be open to all members of the profession, paper presenters must be early-career philosophers – basically, anyone who doesn’t have tenure (e.g. graduate students, post-docs, VAP, TT Assistant Profs, independent scholars, etc.)

• Due to the kinds of travel-funding issues that early-career philosophers often face, several paper sessions (the exact number of which will be determined later) will be reserved for Skype presentations in which the author will be projected, and field audience questions, in real time over the internet.

• Although commentators and audience members are encouraged to present objections to papers, a guiding aim of the conference will beconstructive criticism, i.e. helping authors to improve problems (e.g. by not only raising objections, but offering and discussing possible solutions).

• Because successfully navigating the publishing world is one of the most difficult capacities for early-career philosophers to develop, and typical conference-length papers are too short (3,000 words) to publish, we will welcome submissions the length of any typical journal article (20-30 pages double-spaced) — the aim being to help early-career philosophers develop full-length papers into publishable quality. As a rule of thumb, the longer the paper, the higher the standards for acceptance to the conference. Extremely long papers are discouraged.

• In order to defray costs of attendance (once again out of concern for the needs of early-career scholars), there will be no registration fee, and consequently no official banquet, snacks, etc. Tampa is awesome, and there are many affordable places to meet, eat, and congregate around the university.

• We hope to stream all talks live via the internet and, if time permits, take some audience questions from internet viewers by email.

To submit a paper to present at the PCPC, please email the following to marvan@ut.edu by July 1, 2013: (1) a blinded (i.e. anonymized) paper, (2) a separate title page with the author’s name, contract information, and brief paper abstract, and (3) a statement concerning whether you intend to attend the conference in person or only via Skype. Decision emails indicating whether your paper has been accepted will be sent out around August 1, 2013. Finally, please bear the following in mind:

1. In order to ensure that the conference is well-attended, there will be relatively few Skype sessions — so the probability that your paper will be accepted is higher should you state in your submission email that you can attend in person.
2. Submission of a paper comprises a tacit agreement to serve as a commentator or session chair should your paper be accepted and you accept the invitation to present.

A MANCEPT Workshop in Political Theory, convened by Kalle Grill
4th – 6th September 2013, University of Manchester, UK

Background:

Paternalism continues to be an important topic in moral and political philosophy/theory. But what it is? Most agree that it involves some sort of interference with a person motivated and/or justified by her good.  However, Seana Shiffrin has denied that paternalism need to have this rationale, and proponents of libertarian paternalism typically deny that it need be interfering. It seems even the two most basic elements – interference and benevolence – may not be so basic. What is the most constructive strategy in light of this controversy? Do we keep the conceptual discussion going or can we somehow get around it or do without it?

Libertarian paternalism is a recent political program founded on behavioural research. We now know that what we prefer depends on the context and not only the content of a choice. So our wellbeing can be promoted not only by restricting the content of our choices – blocking or discouraging harmful options, but also by designing or changing the context of our choices – making good options more salient, appealing or otherwise more likely to be chosen. Libertarian paternalists say we should use choice context to promote wellbeing, without restricting content. Can this distinction be maintained? Is libertarian paternalism a coherent strategy? How are pro and con positions on libertarian paternalism related to pro and con positions on paternalism proper?

Suggested topics:

Papers may deal with the importance or lack of importance of the concept of paternalism and/or libertarian paternalism, with the proper or most useful definition of either concept, with the various components of either or both concepts – including benevolence, interference and consent, with choice content versus choice context, or with the normative significance of either or both concepts.

Conceptual investigation of either concept should ideally have some normative use and normative investigation of either concept should ideally be conceptually informed.

Format:

Two 3,5 hour sessions. Room for six papers. Papers/drafts circulated in advance two weeks prior to workshop. Please send an abstract/proposal of 300-700 words to kalle.grill@umu.se before (or on!) May 31st.

Università del Piemonte Orientale
20 May 2013, 11am, Aula Beretta, S. Andrea, Vercelli (Italy)

Speakers:

Michael Rosen (Harvard University)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta (Center for Policy Research, New Delhi)
Anna Elisabetta Galeotti (Università del Piemonte Orientale)
Enzo Rossi (University of South Wales)

Chair: Glyn Morgan (Syracuse University)

The symposium is part of Project Urbanitas (ESF Start-Up Advanced Grant).

Contact: enrico.biale@unipmn.it

Punishment book launch

Date: Tuesday, 14 May 2013

Time: 17:00-19:00

Place: Committee Room 3, the Houses of Parliament, London

Punishment is a topic of increasing importance for citizens and policymakers. Why should we punish criminals? What purposes should punishment serve? These questions and many others will be addressed in this roundtable discussion celebrating the launch of Punishmentby Thom Brooks. Panel members include:

Lord Parekh FBA (chair), Labour Peer and former Chair of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain

Frances Crook OBE, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform

Baroness Stern CBE, Crossbench Peer and former Director of NACRO

Thom Brooks, author of Punishmentand Reader in Law at Durham University

Attendance is free, but spaces are limited. Please register (subject heading “book launch”) to thom. brooks @durham.ac.uk

Further information about the event is here: http://thombrooks.info/index_files/Page948.htm

Further information about the book is here: http://thombrooks.info/index_files/Punishment.pdf

The Publisher’s website is here: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415431828/

Dissensus is the University of Liege (Belgium) peer-reviewed electronic journal in political philosophy. Papers are welcome, in English or French, and are to be sent to secretariat.dissensus@ulg.ac.be

Dissensus is available on http://popups.ulg.ac.be/dissensus/ and http://www.philopol.ulg.ac.be/dissensus.html

–
Dissensus, Revue de philosophie politique de l’ULg
Service de philosophie morale et politique
Université de Liège
Place du XX août, 7
B-4000 Liège
+32 4 366 58 47
secretariat.dissensus@ulg.ac.be

http://popups.ulg.ac.be/dissensus/

http://www.philopol.ulg.ac.be/dissensus.html

Theme: “Global Justice and the Theory and Practice of Development”

Expected date of publication: 2014

Edited by Julian Culp

Global justice is a nearly all-encompassing concept, which not only permits, but makes it mandatory, to reflect upon its importance in the most diverse areas of global politics – trade, migration and tax regulation, for instance. Unsurprisingly, then, most theorists of global justice have analyzed the import of their conception for the practice of development aid/cooperation. Additionally, some also have argued that justice represents the most relevant normative concept for spelling out as to how to understand development.

However, there are many lacunae in this field of research. The continuing criticisms that the existing theories of global distributive justice entail a parochial justification of the development practice and an insufficiently democratic understanding of development demand a revisiting of these theories. Moreover, very little scholarly attention has been devoted so far to the fact that the criteria that are employed to allocate official development assistance may lack a sound normative justification. In addition, new research in development economics on the question as to how to best explain global economic inequality promises to shed new light on moral questions regarding the proper kind of ascription of moral responsibilities for reducing this inequality. And finally, on a more practical level, few theorists of global justice made explicit contributions to the ongoing deliberations about the post-2015 development agenda.

The planned special issue of the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric aims to contribute to filling the existing research gaps concerning the various linkages between global justice and the theory and practice of development. We invite particularly submissions that deal with questions such as the following:

• How, if at all, can a theory of global justice lay a non-parochial moral justificatory basis for certain forms of bi- and multilateral governmental and non-governmental development aid/cooperation?
• Which forms of development aid/cooperation exacerbate global injustices?
• What, if any, is the relevance of a conception of global justice for the justification of the criteria that should be employed for the allocation of official development assistance?
• Does recent research in development economics shed new light on central issues of global distributive justice, especially with regard to the question as to whether the global institutional order is harming the global poor?
• What are the dis-/advantages of conceiving a conception of development on the basis of a specific theory of global justice?
• From the point of view of global justice – which items should be included on the post-2015 development agenda?

For information on the manuscript presentation, please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal/manuscript-presentation

For information on the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric , please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal

For queries please contact Julian Culp via culp@em.uni-frankfurt.de

The workshop convenors invite contributions from multiple perspectives and approaches that critically engage with agonistic political theory, and specifically encourage submissions which address the following topics:

(1) The historical origins of agonism and antagonism;

(2) Conceptual critique and contemporary developments of agonism;

and applications to

(3) democratic institutions; and

(4) political economy.

With regard to theory, the workshop invites papers that look at agonism’s conceptual and normative underpinnings, specifically the underlying concepts of conflict, power, and the political. In addition to this conceptual critique, the workshop aims to engage with appropriations of historical concepts by contemporary agonism, and the distinction of the latter from earlier thinkers such as Schmitt, Arendt, and Nietzsche. More specifically, possible themes include:

-       Agonistic concepts of the political, distinctions between politics and the political, and assumptions about the relation between contest and hostility;

-       Normative assumptions about the purpose of political engagement, the desirability of contestation, and the regulation of conflict in society;

-       Agonistic critiques of liberalism and the underlying goals to either modify existing institutions or replace them wholesale with non-liberal alternatives;

-       Historical manifestations of agon, their metaphysical and theological premises, and the institutional context of ancient practices of contestation.

With regard to praxis, the workshop invites contributions that engage with the agonistic theory of political institutions and the economic implications of agonism. As for political institutions, the focus is on how agonistic visions of radical democracy contrast with theories of deliberative democracy that equally stress the importance of participation and discursive contestation, and how agonistic goals such as enhanced inclusion play out in practice. As for the economic implications of agonism, the workshop aims at returning to the anti-capitalist leanings of its origin in critical theory in order to explore how agonistic political theory could better engage with the power implications of wealth inequalities, and the institutional means of redressing them. In this context, the workshop invites contributions that respond to problems such as:

-       Assumptions regarding the loci of difference-resolution in society and how they bear upon the application of agonism to political institutions;

-       The need for conclusive decision-making in light of urgent political problems and the apparent shortcomings of agonistic theory in this regard;

-       Agonistic alternatives to the prevailing hegemony in the international political economy and their implications for public policy formulation;

-       The apparent failure of agonistic theory to account for issues of redistribution and attempts to reconcile the latter with an agonistic politics of recognition.

Please email an abstract (up to 500 words) as an anonymised attachment to thepoliticsofagonism@gmail.com by 15th June 2013. Please include contact details in the body of the email. Further details about the workshop can be found at the workshop website under http://thepoliticsofagonism.wordpress.com/.

Convenors:

Annette Zimmermann (University of Oxford)

annette.zimmermann@politics.ox.ac.uk

Marius S. Ostrowski (University of Oxford)

marius.ostrowski@politics.ox.ac.uk

From now on, we accept submissions of articles and book reviews for our next issue (2013, second semester).

n. 2 contents:

Filosofía de la alteridad intercultural en América Latina
Álvaro B. Márquez-Fernández

El jardinero feliz: sobre populismo, democracia y espectros
Julián A. Melo

Terrorism, Hegel, Honneth
Sinkwan Cheng

Un análisis de las nociones de abundancia y esclavitud para reinterpretar el carácter universal de la teoría de la apropiación de John Locke
Joan Severo Chumbita

FILIPPI, ALBERTO (dir.), Argentina y Europa. Visiones españolas. Ensayos y documentos (1910-2010), Buenos Aires, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, 2011
Hugo E. Biagini

ROIG, ARTURO E.; Vermeren, Patrice; et. al. Repensando el siglo XIX desde América latina y Francia: Homenaje al filósofo Arturo A. Roig. Compilado por Marisa Muñoz y Patrice Vermeren. Buenos Aires: Colihue, 2009
Diego A. Fernández Peychaux

Issue n. 2

Keynote speakers:
Jean Cohen (Columbia University)
Robert Fine (University of Warwick)

In March 1963, The Viking Press published Hannah Arendt’s book “On Revolution”. Since then, the book has provoked a significant amount of controversy, yet at the same time it has been relatively neglected compared to Arendt’s other major works. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of its publication, the present conference seeks to explore the legacy of “On Revolution”, assessing its relevance for contemporary social and political thought. We invite proposals for presentations that engage with the historical analyses, theoretical positions, and political conclusions of Arendt’s book. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
-  Revolutionary experiences and traditions
-  New beginning, foundation, event: Moments of extraordinary politics
-  Relations and tensions between the political and the social
-  Self-government, radical democracy, and the council system
-  Sovereignty, law, and constituent power

We welcome submissions of both complete papers and extended abstracts of around 500 words. They may be in English or in Spanish and must be prepared for blind review. They should be sent to coloquio_onrevolution@mail.udp.cl. The deadline is June 28, 2013. Notices of acceptance will be sent by July 15, 2013.

The conference is hosted by the Instituto de Humanidades and the Facultad de Ciencias Sociales e Historia of the Universidad Diego Portales. For additional information, please contact the organizers, Rodrigo Cordero Vega and Wolfhart Totschnig, at the email address above.