This article presents a state-of-the-art description of political theory and analyses the role of political theory within the discipline of political science. It starts by describing two dominant approaches within the sub-discipline: conceptual political theory and normative political theory. Secondly, it situates political theory as separated from political science in general and from actual political debates. Thirdly, it analyses the role of methodology in normative political theory.
I argue that the most important contribution of political theory to political science in general is its emphasis on the fact that politics is first and foremost a normative endeavor and that any political-scientific analysis should always be aware of this normative character.

Although hotly debated, the idea of global justice is a relatively new topic within Anglo-Saxon and Continental political philosophy and theory. This paper discusses when and why Anglo-Saxon political theorists became interested in this field of research. The emergence of cosmopolitan norms of justice after the Second World War is one of these reasons. Subsequently, the paper explains some of the basic concepts that are being used within the field and explains why a political philosophical analysis of the ethical significance of boundaries has an added value for political scientists. The paper concludes by elaborating three different themes within the broad debate on global justice: humanitarian aid, global distributive justice, and democratic representation.

Not a few continental philosophers are engaged with the debate on democracy, community and tolerance but also globalization, migration and human rights. They do not demand interpretation to get stopped in order to make action possible, as Marx demanded; every political action should start from a critical interpretation of what political acting demands. The work of philosophers such as Agamben, Benhabib, Honig or Nancy is deeply characterized by the challenge of the numerous difficulties and dilemmas our thinking of the other is confronted with, since the stranger or the other discloses limits by contesting who or what we are. He questions and deconstructs the identity of a given, particular community. The limits of community, that’s what it’s all about.