Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (803)
- Report (719)
- Review (160)
- Part of Periodical (141)
- Contribution to a Periodical (110)
- Doctoral Thesis (110)
- Book (92)
- Working Paper (75)
- Part of a Book (51)
- Conference Proceeding (30)
Language
- German (1379)
- English (648)
- Portuguese (205)
- Spanish (69)
- Italian (24)
- French (12)
- Ukrainian (9)
- slo (7)
- Catalan (4)
- Multiple languages (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2372) (remove)
Keywords
- Adorno (52)
- Deutschland (48)
- Islamischer Staat (43)
- USA (42)
- Terrorismus (38)
- Syrien (35)
- China (30)
- Russland (30)
- IS (29)
- Ukraine (28)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2372) (remove)
Disagreement among philosophers over the proper justification for political institutions is far from a new phenomenon. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that there is substantial room for dissent on this matter within democratic theory. As is well known, instrumentalism and proceduralism represent the two primary viewpoints that democrats can adopt to vindicate democratic legitimacy. While the former notoriously derives the value of democracy from its outcomes, the latter claims that a democratic decision-making process is inherently valuable. This article has two aims. First, it introduces three variables with which we can thoroughly categorise the aforementioned approaches. Second, it argues that the more promising version of proceduralism is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, and that extrinsically procedural accounts can appeal to other values in the justification of democracy without translating into instrumentalism. This article is organised as follows. I present what I consider to be the ‘implicit view’ in the justification of democracy. Then, I analyse each of the three variables in a different section. Finally, I raise an objection against procedural views grounded in relational equality, which cannot account for the idea that democracy is a necessary condition for political legitimacy.
Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, den Wohnungsbau der letzten 15 Jahre im Frankfurter Europaviertel mit Hilfe David Harveys Raumökonomie des Kapitals zu betrachten. Dazu wird der Frage nachgegangen, inwiefern sich die im Europaviertel zu betrachtenden Urbanisierungs- und Investitionsprozesse mit Hilfe Harveys gesellschaftstheoretischer Raumökonomie erklären lassen. Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wird eine Recherche und Analyse diverser Datenquellen aus Wissenschaft, Medien und Politik vorgenommen. Die Analyse der Quellen zeigt, dass Harveys an Karl Marx angelehnte Theorien der Urbanisierung des Kapitals und einer ‚uneven geographical development‘ aufschlussreiche Erklärungsmöglichkeiten für die Investitionsprozesse vor Ort liefern können. Die Betrachtung findet dabei auf einer makroökonomischen Ebene statt und bezieht die Finanzialisierung von Immobilien sowie die Miete von Wohnraum als mögliche Aspekte zur Sicherstellung der Kapitalzirkulation ein.
Blockchain verspricht, Intermediäre wie Banken überflüssig zu machen und durch dezentrale Peer-to-Peer-Netzwerke zu ersetzen. Dieser Beitrag stellt die Frage nach der Realisierbarkeit dieser Ankündigung sowie danach, welche gesellschaftlichen Implikationen damit verbunden sind. Eine historisch informierte theoretische Analyse zeigt, dass die Erzeugung von Kreditgeld durch Banken ein für kapitalistische Gesellschaften existenzieller Vorgang ist. Die Fiktion des Geldwerts bedarf ihrerseits glaubwürdiger Intermediäre, die dauerhaft in der Lage sind, die zeitliche und räumliche Stabilität des Geldes zu inszenieren. Explorative Interviews mit Akteuren im Finanzsektor in Kombination mit einer inhaltsanalytischen Auswertung von einschlägigen Blogs, White Papers und Artikeln der Wirtschaftspresse lassen vermuten, dass Blockchain Intermediäre keineswegs ausschaltet, sondern diejenigen mächtiger werden lässt, die in der Lage sind, die Technologie ihren Bedürfnissen entsprechend umzugestalten.
Ausgehend von der Forschungsfrage „Wie wird im Lebensmittelhandel mit und an Verpackungen gearbeitet?“ erörtert die kumulative Dissertation „Schwierigkeiten und Potentiale der Verpackungsvermeidung – Eine Arbeitsethnographie im Lebensmittel-handel“ Handlungsspielräume für einen nachhaltigeren Umgang mit Verpackungen. In einer ethnographischen Analyse unterschiedlicher Arbeitssettings, werden die Herausforderungen in den alltäglichen Arbeitspraktiken des dominanten verpackungsbasierten Lebensmittelsystems genauso betrachtet wie die Schwierigkeiten der radikalen Transformation dieser Praktiken. Ich argumentiere, dass Verpackungen kein passives Objekt sind, vielmehr sind sie durch ihre Materialeigenschaften und Bedeutungen sowohl an der Stabilität des Arbeitsalltags als auch an der Dynamik von Transformationsprozessen entscheidend beteiligt. Artikel I (Plastic Packaging, Food Supply, and Everyday Life. Adopting a Social Practice Perspective in Social-Ecological Research) behandelt die Potentiale eines praxistheoretischen Forschungszugangs für die Erforschung von Plastikverpackungen im Speziellen und sozial-ökologischen Problemen im Allgemeinen. Anhand von konkreten Forschungsbeispielen erörtern wir im Artikel zwei mögliche praxistheoretische Zugänge zur Beziehung von Praktiken und materiellen Entitäten, die eine sozial-ökologische Systemperspektive je nach Fragestellung sinnvoll ersetzen können. Im Netzwerk-Ansatz konzipieren wir Materialität als Element in heterogeneren Netzwerken aus Praktiken um die Diversität im alltäglichen Umgang mit Infrastrukturen, Technologien und Dingen erforschbar zu machen. Mit dem Nexus-Ansatz fokussieren wir auf die Wechselwirkungen zwischen Alltagspraktiken und ihrer räumlich-materiellen Umgebung um die infrastrukturelle Rolle von Verpackungen zu ergründen. Artikel II (Making Food Manageable - Packaging as a Code of Practice for Work Practices at the Supermarket) greift den im Artikel I diskutierten Netzwerk-Ansatz auf und befasst sich empirisch mit der Frage „Wie wird im Lebensmittelhandel mit Verpackungen gearbeitet?“. Der Artikel erläutert die Schwierigkeit der Verpackungsvermeidung anhand einer ethnographisch/praxis-theoretischen Analyse und präsentiert zentrale Funktionen von Verpackungen im Supermarkt. An konkreten empirischen Beispielen in zentraler Arbeitsbereiche wie Produktpräsentation, Warenlogistik und Ladenrepräsentation zeige ich die Vielfältigkeit von Verpackungsfunktionen jenseits von Marketing oder technischer Schutzfunktionen. Das beinhaltet die Platzierung und Aufbereitung der Produkte im Regal, die Evaluation von Produktqualitäten und Quantitäten von Warenströmen sowie die Repräsentation zentraler Qualitäten eines guten Supermarktes. Praktische Verpackungsvermeidung erfordert eine Reflektion solcher Verpackungsfunktionen. Artikel III (Negotiating attachments to plastic) behandelt die Frage „Wie wird im Lebensmittelhandel an Verpackungen gearbeitet?“ durch die trans-sequentielle Analyse eines Innovationsprozesses zur Plastikvermeidung in einem deutschen Bio-Großhandel. Im Artikel diskutiere ich die Schwierigkeit grundlegender Innovationen der Verpackungs-vermeidung durch die Erläuterung ganz praktischer Veränderungsbarrieren und Widerstände der Veränderung von normalisierten Objektbeziehungen und Nutzungs-praktiken. In der Analyse der dynamischen Beziehungen (Attachments) von Arbeiter*innen und Plastikfolie (bzw. ihrer Substitute) zeige ich, dass „etwas loswerden" ein unzureichender Ansatz ist, wenn es darum geht, nicht-nachhaltige Plastiknutzungen zu transformieren. Verpackungsvermeidung gelingt eben nicht durch ein „Befreien“ menschlicher Handlungsmacht von nicht nachhaltigen Objektabhängigkeiten, vielmehr geht es darum, das Zusammenspiel von Verpackungen und Arbeiter*innen in konkreten Praktiken neu zu gestalten. Artikel IV (How to Apply Precycling: Unpacking the Versatility of Packaging in Networks of Food Supply Practices) greift schließlich die zentralen Erkenntnisse der ethnographischen Analyse auf und diskutiert die Folgen für sozial-ökologische Transformationsprozesse. Die Ergebnisse aus den beiden ethno-graphischen Fallstudien (Artikel II, III) werden zusammengeführt und anhand der Perspektive des Netzwerk-Ansatzes (Artikel I) diskutiert. Ich konkretisiere damit die Potentiale einer praxistheoretischen Herangehensweise für die soziologische Analyse der Verpackungsnutzung und die Entwicklung von praktischen Precycling-Strategien zur systematischen Verpackungsmüllvermeidung.
The sixth sanction package of the European Union in the context of the aggression against Ukraine excludes Sberbank, the largest Russian bank, from the SWIFT network. The increasing use of SWIFT as a tool for sanctions stimulates the rollout of alternative payment information systems by the governments of Russia and China. This policy white paper informs about the alternatives at hand, as well as their advantages and disadvantages. Careful reflection about these issues is particularly important, given the call for an “Economic Article 5” tabled for the next NATO meeting. Finally, the white paper highlights the need for institutional reforms, if policymakers decide to return SWIFT to the status of a global public good after the war.
Streitpunkt Hochschulranking
(2012)
Seit den 90er Jahren werden auch in Deutschland Hochschulen und Fakultäten in Form von Rankings bewertet. Dabei werden anhand bestimmter Kriterien – z.B. Leistungen in Forschung und Lehre, Ausstattung oder Entwicklungsperspektiven – Ranglisten erstellt.
Hochschulrankings sind als Informationsquellen für Studierende, Wissenschaftler, Unternehmen und Hochschulpolitik immer wichtiger geworden. Zugleich schwelt seit einiger Zeit ein heftiger Streit über die generelle Aussagekraft von Rankings. Methodische Mängel und unzulässige Interpretationen der Daten seien zu beklagen, so die Kritiker. Einige Fakultäten und sogar ganze Hochschulen haben sich bereits aus bestimmten Rankings ausgeklinkt. Die Befürworter der Rankings wiederum sehen in diesen Austritten eine Gefahr für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der deutschen Hochschulen.
Wir haben speziell zu einem der wichtigsten Rankings zwei Standpunkte eingeholt. Frank Ziegele, Geschäftsführer des Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE), verteidigt das CHE Hochschulranking, Prof. Sighard Neckel, Soziologe an der Goethe-Universität, kontert mit seiner Kritik.
Dieser Beitrag reflektiert und ergänzt die aktuelle Diskussion über die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats zur Weiterentwicklung der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir richten dabei den Blick auf die vom Wissenschaftsrat attestierten Schwachstellen im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden und erläutern ihre Auswirkungen auf Interdisziplinarität, Internationalität und Politikberatung der deutschen Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Wir argumentieren, unter Verweis auf den Bericht des Wissenschaftsrats, dass eine breitere Methodenausbildung und -kenntnis von großer Bedeutung für interdisziplinäre und internationale Zusammenarbeit, aber auch für die Politikberatung ist. Zukünftige Initiativen innerhalb der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung sollten die Methodenvielfalt des Forschungsbereichs angemessen berücksichtigen und einen besonderen Fokus auf die Ausbildung im Bereich empirisch-analytischer Methoden legen, um das Forschungsfeld in diesem Bereich zu stärken. Unser Beitrag entspringt einer Diskussion innerhalb des Arbeitskreises „Empirische Methoden der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung“ der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedens- und Konfliktforschung.
Vernetzung macht Cluster erfolgreich : erste Studie für die Metropolregion RheinMain erschienen
(2013)
This review analyses the aesthetic engagement with Nazi atrocities during WWII and belonging in post-war Germany as presented in Nora Krug’s graphic novel Heimat: A German Family Album. The authors employ Marianne Hirsch’s concept of ‘postmemory’ as an analytical tool that helps them locate the complex historical and emotional contexts from which this graphic novel receives its impulses. The concrete scenes from the novel are presented and subsequently related to the field of memory and postmemory scholarship. Wider critical debates on how aesthetic articulations of past atrocities influence the next generations of ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ are examined, to ask: What does it mean to inhabit memories of ghostly narratives about perpetrators and how does it form a feeling of post-home?
This paper considers ways in which rulers can respond to, generate, or exploit fear of COVID-19 infection for various ends, and in particular distinguishes between ‘fear-invoking’ and ‘fear-minimising’ strategies. It examines historical precedent for executive overreach in crises and then moves on to look in more detail at some specific areas where fear is being mobilised or generated: in ways that lead to the suspension of civil liberties; that foster discrimination against minorities; and that boost the personality cult of leaders and limit criticism or competition. Finally, in the Appendix, we present empirical work, based on the results of an original survey in Brazil, that provides support for the conjectures in the previous sections. While it is too early to tell what the longer-term outcomes of the changes we note will be, our purpose here is simply to identify some warning signs that threaten the key institutions and values of democracy.
The COVID-19 pandemic has both highlighted and exacerbated global health inequities, leading for calls for responses to COVID to promote social justice and ensure that no one is left behind. One key lesson to be learnt from the pandemic is the critical importance of decolonizing global health and global health research so that African countries are better placed to address pandemic challenges in contextually relevant ways. This paper argues that to be successful, programmes of decolonization in complex global health landscapes require a complex three-dimensional approach. Drawing on the broader discourse of political decolonization that has been going on in the African context for over a century, we present a model for unpacking the complex task of decolonization. Our approach suggests a three-dimensional approach which encompasses hegemomic; epistemic; and commitmental elements.
We live in tragic times. Millions are sheltering in place to avoid exacerbating the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. How should we respond to such tragedies? This paper argues that the human right to health can help us do so because it inspires human rights advocates, claimants, and those with responsibility for fulfilling the right to try hard to satisfy its claims. That is, the right should, and often does, give rise to what I call the virtue of creative resolve. This resolve embodies a fundamental commitment to finding creative solutions to what appear to be tragic dilemmas. Contra critics, we should not reject the right even if it cannot tell us how to ration scarce health resources. Rather, the right gives us a response to apparent tragedy in motivating us to search for ways of fulfilling everyone’s basic health needs.
The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting countries across the globe. Only a globally coordinated response, however, will enable the containment of the virus. Responding to a request from policy makers for ethics input for a global resource pledging event as a starting point, this paper outlines normative and procedural principles to inform a coordinated global coronavirus response. Highlighting global connections and specific vulnerabilities from the pandemic, and proposing standards for reasonable and accountable decision-making, the ambition of the paper is two-fold: to raise awareness for the justice dimensions in the global response, and to argue for moving health from the periphery to the centre of philosophical debates about social and global justice.
The first case of COVID-19 infection in Africa was recorded in Egypt on 14 February 2020. Following this, several projections of the possible devastating effect that the virus can have on the population of African countries were made in the Western media. This paper presents evidence for Africa’s successful responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and under-reporting or misrepresentation of these successes in Western media. It proceeds to argue for accounting for these successes in terms of Africa’s communitarian way of life and conceptions of self, duty, and rights; and that a particular orientation in theorizing on global justice can highlight the injustices inherent in the misrepresentation of these successes and contribute shared perspectives to formulating a framework of values and concepts that would facilitate the implementation of global policy goals for justice. The paper is thus grounded in a rejection of the insular tenets of theorizing prevalent in the global justice debate and to persistent inclinations in Western scholarship to the thinking that theorizing in the African context that draws inspiration from the cultural past has little to contribute to the quest for justice globally. On the contrary, it argues that reflexive critique of cultural history is a necessary source of normative ideals that can foster tolerant coexistence and a cooperative endeavour toward shared conceptions of justice in the contemporary world.
Introduction
(2022)
Der Akteurscharakter der BRICS-Staaten : eine qualitative Untersuchung mit der Grounded Theory
(2020)
Die Abschlussarbeit beschäftigt sich mit der zentralen Fragestellung: Welchen Akteurscharakter besitzen die BRICS-Staaten? Zur Beantwortung ist mit der Grounded Theory eine rekonstruktionslogische Herangehensweise gewählt worden, um das Phänomen zu untersuchen. Für den Forschungsprozess ist auf die Software MAXQDA zurückgegriffen worden. Als Ergebnis werden die BRICS-Staaten als „Kooperationsmodell der Nichteinmischung“ betitelt.
The policy studies literature is divided on how information processing takes place in policy processes. Punctuated equilibrium theory claims that policymakers tend to process information disproportionately, giving more weight to some incoming signals than to others. By contrast, thermostatic models of policymaking argue that policymakers respond in a more proportionate way. In this paper, we analyse information processing in the adoption of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) under the European Union’s (EU) Common Fisheries Policy. Based on a novel measure for the proportionality of information processing, it shows that over time TACs have become more closely aligned with incoming signals about fish stocks. This development can be explained through a combination of changing discourses around fisheries conservation and institutional adjustments in EU fisheries policy. This analysis has implications for the debate between punctuated equilibrium and thermostatic models of policymaking and our understanding of the effectiveness of EU fisheries policies.
Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the “democratization of tax enforcement,” by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.
Large companies are increasingly on trial. Over the last decade, many of the world’s biggest firms have been embroiled in legal disputes over corruption charges, financial fraud, environmental damage, taxation issues or sanction violations, ending in convictions or settlements of record-breaking fines, well above the billion-dollar mark. For critics of globalization, this turn towards corporate accountability is a welcome sea-change showing that multinational companies are no longer above the law. For legal experts, the trend is noteworthy because of the extraterritorial dimensions of law enforcement, as companies are increasingly held accountable for activities independent of their nationality or the place of the activities. Indeed, the global trend required understanding the evolution of corporate criminal law enforcement in the United States in particular, where authorities have skillfully expanded its effective jurisdiction beyond its territory. This paper traces the evolution of corporate prosecutions in the United States. Analyzing federal prosecution data, it then shows that foreign firms are more likely to pay a fine, which is on average 6,6 times larger.
Diese Masterarbeit fragt nach Anschlussmöglichkeiten der Schriften Bruno Latours an die Postwachstumsdiskussion an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena. Im ersten Schritt wird die Jenaer Debatte um Degrowth in der Tradition der kritischen Theorie verortet und inhaltlich anhand der Begriffe der »Wachstumskritik« und der »sozial-ökologischen Transformation« rekonstruiert. Zweitens folgt die Rekonstruktion Latours anhand dreier Werkphasen seit Anfang der 90ger Jahre. Im dritten Schritt geht es darum, Latour mit der Jenaer Debatte ins Gespräch zu bringen. Dabei stößt der Autor auf einen sozial-theoretischen Graben zwischen beiden Denkschulen. Das darf allerdings nicht darüber hinwegtäuschen, dass Latours Werke viele praktische Anknüpfungspunkte bereithalten, wie eine sozial-ökologische Transformation im Sinne der Postwachstumsdebatte gelingen kann.
"Es scheint normal, dass Frauen Opfer und Männer Täter sind" (Schwithal 2004:1). Permanent wird der akute Schutzbedarf von Frauen breitflächig thematisiert. Die Medien liefern täglich erschütterndes Material von Frauen, die Gewalt erfahren. In diesem Fall sind Hilfs- und Beratungsangebote leicht zu finden, Frauenhäuser sind in der breiten Masse der Bevölkerung bekannt und sensible Handlungsleitfäden für Betroffene und Angehörige liegen in Arztpraxen oder Supermärkten aus. Gegenstand ist überwiegend häusliche Gewalt1 - die Gewalt welche hinter verschlossenen Türen und von der Öffentlichkeit abgeschnitten geschieht und der Frauen hilflos ausgeliefert sind. TV-Spots, die Opfer dazu aufrufen nicht länger in der missbräuchlichen Situation zu verharren, richten sich ausschließlich an Frauen. Der quälende, schreiende und schmerzverursachende Mann – oft nur als dunkler Schatten, geballte Faust oder bedrohliche Stimme dargestellt – verharrt in der Täterrolle. ...
China’s law to control international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) has sent shockwaves through international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society and expert communities as the epitome of a worldwide trend of closing civic spaces. Since the Overseas NGO Management Law was enacted in January 2017, its implementation has seen mixed effects and diverging patterns of adaptation among Chinese party-state actors at the central and local levels and among domestic NGOs and INGOs. To capture the formal and informal dynamics underlying their mutual interactions in the longer term, this article employs a theory of institutional change inspired by Elinor Ostrom’s distinction between rules-in-form versus rules-in-use and identifies four scenarios for international civil society in China – “no change,” “restraining,” “recalibrating” and “reorienting.” Based on interviews, participant observation and Chinese policy documents and secondary literature, the respective driving forces, plausibility, likelihood and longer-term implications of each scenario are assessed. It is found that INGOs’ activities are increasingly affected by the international ambitions of the Chinese party-state, which enmeshes both domestic NGOs and INGOs as agents in its diplomatic efforts to redefine civil society participation on a global scale.
Gender and attitudes toward welfare state reform: Are women really social investment promoters?
(2021)
This article contributes to the study of the demand side of welfare politics by investigating gender differences in social investment preferences systematically. Building on the different functions of social investment policies in creating, preserving, or mobilizing skills, we argue that women do not support social investment policies generally more strongly than men. Rather, women demand, in particular, policies to preserve their skills during career interruptions and help to mobilize their skills on the labour market. In a second analytical step, we examine women’s policy priorities if skill preservation and mobilization come at the expense of social compensation. We test our arguments for eight Western European countries with data from the INVEDUC survey. The confirmation of our arguments challenges a core assumption of the literatures on the social investment turn and women’s political realignment. We discuss the implication of our findings in the conclusion.
Allen Buchanan argues that a particular set of false factual beliefs, especially when part of a comprehensive ideology, can lead persons to develop ‘morally conservative’ convictions that stand in the way of realising justice even though these persons have a ‘firm grasp of correct principles of justice and a robust commitment to their realisation’. In my remarks, I raise some questions concerning the core argument: How ‘firm’ can a grasp of principles of justice be if a person is blind to the realities of injustice? And how ‘sincerely committed’ to justice can such an injustice-insensitive person be? Alternatively: How firm is that grasp or commitment if one has a radically pessimistic view about human nature so that one does not believe that (egalitarian) justice can or could ever be realised? Secondly, I ask: If such ideologies or false beliefs are in play in reproducing injustice, do they not also ‘mask’ existing injustices?
Scholars and international organizations engaged in institutional reconstruction converge in recognizing political corruption as a cause or a consequence of conflicts. Anticorruption is thus generally considered a centrepiece of institutional reconstruction programmes. A common approach to anticorruption within this context aims primarily to counter the negative political, social, and economic effects of political corruption, or implement legal anticorruption standards and punitive measures. We offer a normative critical discussion of this approach, particularly when it is initiated and sustained by external entities. We recast the focus from an outward to an inward perspective on institutional action and failure centred on the institutional interactions between officeholders. In so doing, we offer the normative tools to reconceptualize anticorruption in terms of an institutional ethics of ‘office accountability’ that draws on an institution’s internal resources of self-correction as per the officeholders’ interrelated work.
The article “Ganging up on Trump? Sino-German Relations and the Problem with Soft Balancing against the USA”, written by Sebastian Biba, was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume 25, issue 4, pages 531–550 the authors decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. The original article has been corrected.
In ‘Justice and Natural Resources,’ Chris Armstrong offers a rich and sophisticated egalitarian theory of resource justice, according to which the benefits and burdens flowing from natural (and non-natural) resources are ideally distributed with a view to equalize people’s access to wellbeing, unless there are compelling reasons that justify departures from that egalitarian default. Armstrong discusses two such reasons: special claims from ‘improvement’ and ‘attachment.’ In this paper, I critically assess the account he gives of these potential constraints on global equality. I argue that his recognition of them has implications that Armstrong does not anticipate, and which challenge some important theses in his book. First, special claims from improvement will justify larger departures from the egalitarian default than Armstrong believes. Second, a consistent application of Armstrong’s life planfoundation for special claims from attachment implies that nation-states may move closer to justify ‘permanent sovereignty’ over the resources within their territories than what his analysis suggests.
In this paper, we discuss Armstrong’s account of attachment-based claims to natural resources, the kind of rights that follow from attachment-based claims, and the limits we should impose on such claims. We hope to clarify how and why attachment matters in the discourse on resource rights by presenting three challenges to Armstrong’s theory. First, we question the normative basis for certain attachment claims, by trying to distinguish more clearly between different kinds of attachment and other kinds of claims. Second, we highlight the need to supplement Armstrong’s account with a theory of how to weigh different attachment claims so as to establish the normative standing that different kinds of attachment claims should have. Third, we propose that sustainability must be a necessary requirement for making attachment claims to natural resources legitimate. Based on these three challenges and the solutions we propose, we argue that attachment claims are on the one hand narrower than Armstrong suggests, while on the other hand they can justify more far-reaching rights to control than Armstrong initially considers, because of the particular weight that certain attachment claims have.
The paper analyses the interrelationship between Armstrong’s egalitarian theory and his treatment of the ‘attachment theory’ of resources, which is the dominant rival theory of resources that his theory is pitched against. On Armstrong’s theory, egalitarianism operates as a default position, from which special claims would need to be justified, but he also claims to be able to incorporate ‘attachment’ into his theory. The general question explored in the paper is the extent to which ‘attachment’ claims can be ‘married’ to an egalitarian theory. The more specific argument is that a properly constrained attachment theory is more plausible than Armstrong’s egalitarian theory. Armstrong’s paper also criticizes attachment and improvement accounts as justifying permanent sovereignty over resources. This paper argues that neither of those arguments aim to justify the international doctrine of permanent sovereignty.
This paper argues that land and resource rights are often essential in overcoming colonial inequality and devaluation of indigenous populations and cultures. It thereby criticizes global welfare egalitarians that promote the abolition of national sovereignty over resources in the name of increased equality. The paper discusses two ways in which land and resource rights contribute to decolonization and the eradication of the associated inequality. First, it proposes that land and resource rights have acquired a status-conferring function for (formerly) colonized peoples so that possession of full personhood and relational equality is partially expressed through the possession of land and resource rights. Second, it suggests that successful internal decolonization depends on access to and control over land and resources, especially for indigenous peoples.
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.
A reply to my critics
(2021)
It is a real pleasure to reply to so many thoughtful and probing responses to my book. In what follows, I will focus on six key themes that emerge across the various pieces. Some of them call into question core commitments of my theory, and in those cases I will try to show what might be said in its defence. Quite a number of the critics, however, present what we might call expansionist arguments: though they endorse some of the arguments I make, that is – or pick up some of its key concepts – they seek to push them in new and interesting directions. I will suggest that many of those arguments look likely to be successful, though I will also express caution about one or two of them. I doubt, however, that I will be the final judge of their success. Early on in the book I express the hope that it might provide a set of conceptual tools capable of advancing discussions about resource justice more broadly, even for scholars who reject my own idiosyncratic approach. Having made that gambit, I cannot now claim to have a monopoly on the use of the tools in question. Witnessing the use that others have already made of them has been a refreshing and rewarding experience.
This paper uses a novel account of non-ideal political action that can justify radical responses to severe climate injustice, including and especially deliberate attempts to engineer the climate system in order reflect sunlight into space and cooling the planet. In particular, it discusses the question of what those suffering from climate injustice may do in order to secure their fundamental rights and interests in the face of severe climate change impacts. Using the example of risky geoengineering strategies such as sulfate aerosol injections, I argue that peoples that are innocently subject to severely negative climate change impacts may have a special permission to engage in large-scale yet risky climate interventions to prevent them. Furthermore, this can be true even if those interventions wrongly harm innocent people.
Chris Armstrong argues that attempts at justifying special claims over natural resources generally take one of two forms: arguments from improvement and arguments from attachment. We argue that Armstrong fails to establish that the distinction between natural resources and improved resources has no normative significance. He succeeds only in showing that ‘improvers’ (whoever they may be) are not necessarily entitled to the full exchange value of the improvement. It can still be argued that the value of natural and improved resources should be distributed on different grounds, but that the value of improvements should be conceived differently.
This paper argues first that Armstrong is led to see natural resources primarily as objects of consumption. But many natural resources are better seen as objects of enjoyment, where one person’s access to a resource need not prevent others from enjoying equal access, or as objects of production, where granting control of a resource to one person may produce collateral benefits to others. Second, Armstrong’s approach to resource distribution, which requires that everyone must have equal access to welfare, conceals an ambiguity as to whether this means equal opportunity for welfare, or simply equal welfare – the underlying issue being how far individuals (or countries) should be held responsible for the use they make of the resources they are allocated. Third, when Armstrong attacks arguments that appeal to ‘improvement’ as a basis for claims to natural resources, he treats them as making comparative desert claims: if country A makes a claim to the improved resources on its territory, it must show that their comparative value accurately reflects the productive deserts of its members compared to those of countries B. But in fact, A needs only to make the much weaker claim that its members have done more than others to enhance the value of its resources. Overall, Armstrong’s welfarist approach fails to appreciate the dynamic advantages of allocating resources to those best able to use them productively.
Introduction
(2021)
Some realists in political theory deny that the notion of feasibility has any place in realist theory, while others claim that feasibility constraints are essential elements of realist normative theorising. But none have so far clarified what exactly they are referring to when thinking of feasibility and political realism together. In this article, we develop a conception of the realist feasibility frontier based on an appraisal of how political realism should be distinguished from non-ideal theories. In this realist framework, political standards are feasible if they meet three requirements: they are (i) politically intelligible, (ii) contextually recognisable as authoritative, and (iii) contestable. We conclude by suggesting that our conception of realist feasibility might be compatible with utopian demands, thereby possibly finding favour with realists who otherwise refuse to resort to the notion of feasibility.