Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11)
Keywords
- justice (11) (remove)
Justice, not development : Sen and the hegemonic framework for ameliorating global inequality
(2014)
Starting from the merits of Sen's "Development as freedom", the article also explores its shortcomings. It argues that they are related to an uncritical adoption of the discourse of "development", which is the hegemonic framework for ameliorating global inequality today. This discourse implies certain limitations of thought and action, and the article points out three areas where urgent questions of global justice have been largely ignored by development theory and policy as a consequence. Struggles for justice on a global scale, this is the conclusion, should not take the detour of "development".
Problém tolerance se v posledních desetiletích v kontextu procesů globalizace a integrace národnostních menšin jeví jako jeden z klíčových problémů politické teorie. Autorem jedné z nejvlivnějších současných teorií tolerance je pak bezpochyby člen „čtvrté generace“ frankfurtské školy Rainer Forst. Článek předkládá kritickou recepci jeho teorie, lze ho ovšem zároveň chápat jako prostředek k získání obecné systematické a normativní orientace ve struktuře komplexní problematiky tolerance, která v současnosti významně rezonuje ve veřejném prostoru. Výklad za pomoci historických příkladů osvětluje Forstovo rozlišení pojmu a pojetí tolerance a následně se věnuje originálnímu normativnímu ospravedlnění tolerance, s důrazem na Forstem předložená řešení s tímto pojmem spojených paradoxů. Následuje kritické zhodnocení Forstovy argumentace, které poukazuje mimo jiné na obtíže vyplývající z Forstovy návaznosti na tradici liberalismu a konstruktivismu, a tím se dotýká problémů ležících v základech nejen Forstova myšlení, ale v základech těchto myšlenkových směrů vůbec.
This paper considers the trend towards megaregionalism (TTIP, TPP) that became prominent in the trade domain in the last years of the Obama administration. While megaregionalism has fallen by the wayside since Trump’s inauguration, the underlying rationale for such treaties will most likely reassert itself rather soon. So there are structural issues that need to be discussed from a standpoint of global justice. In all likelihood, megaregionalism is detrimental to global justice. TTIP in particular, or anything like it, might derail any possibility for a trade organization to aid the pursuit of justice at the global level, and any possibility that trade will be used to that end. From the standpoint of global justice one must hope that megaregionalism does not replace WTO multilateralism. The global-justice framework used here is the grounds-of-justice approach offered in the author’s 2012 On Global Justice.
In Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory (2017), Chris Armstrong proposes a version of global egalitarianism that – contra the default renderings of this approach – takes individual attachment to specific resources into account. By doing this, his theory has the potential for greening global egalitarianism both in terms of procedure and scope. In terms of procedure, its broad account of attachment and its focus on individuals rather than groups connects with participatory governance and management and, ultimately, participatory democracy – an essential ingredient in the toolkit of green politics and policy-making. In terms of scope, because it does not commit itself to any particular moral framework, Armstrong’s theory leaves the door open for non-human animals to become subjects of justice, thus extending the realm of the latter beyond its traditionally anthropocentric borders. I conclude that these greenings are promising, but not trouble-free.
The paper examines obligations towards bearers of the right to asylum in circumstances of partial compliance. Who should bear the burdens when a state responsible for assisting bearers of the right to asylum fails to comply with the requirements of justice and unjustly defaults on its responsibilities? Are the complying states obligated to ‘take up the slack’ and assist the bearers of the right to asylum, or are they obligated to bear only their ‘fair share’ of burdens in the global protection of the right to asylum? The paper argues that the complying states with the capacity to assist can have an obligation of justice to assist bearers of the right to asylum when other states unjustly default on their responsibilities.
This paper intends to discuss some contemporary issues on human rights and democracy related to the concept of justice. Is the set of individual rights that is assumed by western democracies really universal? If so, how are they supposed to be interpreted? On the other side if I take into account the “other” and pluralism in a serious way how to conciliate different concepts of justice? Taking Jacques Derrida’s approach of justice as its standpoint this paper aims to stress the difficulty to achieve a unique concept of justice as well as to think justice in the sphere of international law and the problem of ensuring human rights in the international order. Western democracies has becoming more and more multiethnic and multicultural and the set of rights that is at the center of the legal order has to be interpreted in a dialogical sense, one that assumes difference and plurality as its starting point. The plurality of conceptions of the good and the impossibility of establishing a unique concept of justice demands the re-creation of a democratic sphere where the dissent and the conflict could be experienced and, at the same time, the legal order needs to ensure individual and group rights against majority’s dictatorship. The main goal of this paper is to re-think the interpretation of law in a multicultural scenario in which it is not possible to have only one criteria of justice and difference and pluralism are envisaged are values themselves.
In diesem paper sollen einige Überlegungen skizziert werden, die der Konzeption der LOEWE-Ringvorlesung „Die Justiz vor den Herausforderungen der kulturellen Diversität – rechtshistorische Annäherungen „zu Grunde liegen. Der Text kann nicht mehr als eine Diskussionsgrundlage sein und den Ort der Beiträge im Gesamtvorhaben aufzeigen – ohne die Referentinnen und Referenten damit festlegen zu wollen. Die angesprochenen Fragen sind sehr umfangreich und können sehr unterschiedlich verstanden werden – so gibt es eben z.B. keine Definition von ‚Diversität’ und keinen festen Kanon von mit diesem Terminus umschriebenen Realitäten. Für viele Aspekte bedürfte es eingehender rechtssoziologischer, -theoretischer, -anthropologischer Reflexion. Umso wichtiger schien es, einen Diskussionsvorschlag zu Perspektiven und Termini für das gemeinsame Gespräch im Semester und im LOEWE-Schwerpunkt „Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung“ zu machen. Auch die hier zitierte Literatur kann nur Schlaglichter auf ein sehr dynamisch anwachsendes Schrifttum werfen. Im Sinne einer ‚forschungsnahen Lehre‘ wird dabei bewusst auf aktuelle Forschungsvorhaben hingewiesen.
Recent trade negotiations such as TTIP include investor protection clauses. Against the background of an analysis of the case for trade, the paper asks whether such clauses can be justified from a normative perspective. More specifically, what is the impact of investor protection on the domestic distribution of the gains from trade between labour and capital, and how should we assess this impact from the perspective of justice? In order to answer this question, the paper develops a series of ideal-type scenarios that reflect the consequences of investor protection on employment on the one hand, and on the distributive conflict between labour and capital on the other. While no claim is made which of these scenarios corresponds to TTIP or other trade agreements, they provide a useful normative framework to analyse such agreements.
Sanctions placed upon airlines and other operators transporting persons without the required paperwork are called ‘carrier sanctions’. They constitute a key example of how border control mechanisms are currently being outsourced, privatized, delegated, and moved from the border itself to new physical locations. These practices can lead to a phenomenon referred to in this paper as ‘hidden coercion’. This paper argues that, while hidden coercion is commonplace in the reality of migration policy in most states, it is so far neglected in theoretical discussions of state coercion. Moreover, the discussion of carrier sanctions demonstrates that this neglect is problematic, since hidden coercion is not justifiable even within a framework that legitimizes state border coercion.
This paper discusses two possible difficulties with Catherine Lu’s powerful analysis of the moral response to our shared history of colonial evil; both of these difficulties stem from the rightful place of shame in that moral response. The first difficulty focuses on efficacy: existing states may be better motivated by shame at the past than by a shared duty to bring about a just future. The second focuses on equity: it is, at the very least, possible that shame over past misdeeds ought to be brought into the conversation about present duties, in a manner more robust than Lu’s analysis allows.