Search results

The question of whether traditional liberalism can function as the foundation of social justice in the future is investigated. Liberalism's ambiguous treatment of ethical & moral issues in its attempt to ensure both individual autonomy & cosmopolitanism is reviewed. The problem concerning whether liberalism should treat international justice as both theory & practice is addressed. The need to integrate the concepts of duty & sentiment into contemporary liberal thought is then discussed. Informed by the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is subsequently asserted that the language of sentiment offers an alternative that allows democratic societies to accept certain moral laws while avoiding violations of principles of social justice. Difficulties that arise when universalist & particularist thought are negotiated within the context of international justice are also covered. It is concluded that liberalism's claim that membership in a given political community is not an ethical issue requires additional review. 18 References. J. W. Parker

The question of whether traditional liberalism can function as the foundation of social justice in the future is investigated. Liberalism's ambiguous treatment of ethical & moral issues in its attempt to ensure both individual autonomy & cosmopolitanism is reviewed. The problem concerning whether liberalism should treat international justice as both theory & practice is addressed. The need to integrate the concepts of duty & sentiment into contemporary liberal thought is then discussed. Informed by the thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is subsequently asserted that the language of sentiment offers an alternative that allows democratic societies to accept certain moral laws while avoiding violations of principles of social justice. Difficulties that arise when universalist & particularist thought are negotiated within the context of international justice are also covered. It is concluded that liberalism's claim that membership in a given political community is not an ethical issue requires additional review. 18 References. J. W. Parker

"This chapter deals with the challenge of policy definition, cooperation and coordination in a complex system of multi-level governance faced by decision-makers in international politics today, using the example of international climate governance. The practical, as well as the analytical challenge, of said system of multi-level governance lies in its dynamic structure, which includes the vertical (i.e. domestic and foreign; subnational, national, and international) and horizontal levels (structure of decision-making processes in international institutions) of international politics, the participation of non-state actors, and the inter-linkages and interdependencies between all policy fields and levels involved. More often than not, intentions and interests on the different levels are disparate and difficult to harmonize, which can result in less than ideal policy strategies, are likely to 'get lost' in the multi-level governance system. International climate governance and the difficulties with institutionalizing an all-encompassing climate protection strategy can be seen as an example of a policy field that is 'lost in multi-level governance.' This will be illustrated in the following chapter by analyzing five dimensions of climate governance and how they hamper successful climate governance-and thus climate protection-at the international level." (author's abstract)

The Clinton administration was an early supporter of a permanent court to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, & genocide. When control over the court's agenda was not assigned to the UN Security Council, the U.S. position changed from support to opposition. Now that the International Criminal Court has been created, it stands as a continuing example of the unilateralism that critics say characterizes US. foreign policy. In light of the broad international support for the court, continuing U.S. opposition to it raises questions about the United States' commitment to the rule of international law.

Discusses the utility of social constructivism for the study of international institutions with an eye toward a confluence between rationalist & constructivist paradigms & problem-oriented rather than paradigm-driven research. Metatheoretical assumptions driving rationalist & constructivist institutionalisms are compared. Three logics of social action are described -- consequentialism, appropriateness, & truth seeking or arguing -- in terms of how these two paradigms weight them: rational choice emphasizes a logic of instrumental rationality & consequentialism & is self-consciously agency centered, while constructivism can be divided in more structural accounts stressing the logic of appropriateness & rule following & on more agency-centered ideas devoted to argumentative rationality & persuasion. Key terms used in the constructivist approach are defined before specifying how constructivism differs from rational choice in looking at international institutions & how the two approaches to institutionalism might meet. For the latter, three examples are presented: (1) Rationalist & sociological versions of institutionalism theorize about path-dependent processes. (2) There is a difference between the taken-for-granted nature of social norms or the enactment of cultural scripts & arguments about bounded rationality. (3) There is a controversy regarding causal vs constitutive effects of political institutions. Paradigm convergence is exposed through an analysis of the life cycle of international institutions, focusing empirical contributions to the study of the emergence & change of international norms & institutions & their impact on domestic political life in terms of rule compliance. It is concluded that combining the different logics of social action to show how they complement each other is the most promising direction for future institutionalist inquiry in international relations; implications of this for the practical knowledge of international politics are shared. J. Zendejas