Search results

The rapid deployment of rooftop solar panels in many US cities has raised new concerns about the fair distribution of electricity costs through rates. Electric utilities argue that existing rate structures shift costs from solar owners to lower-income ratepayers, while critics say rooftop solar benefits all ratepayers and helps address environmental injustice. In light of these competing justice claims, this article asks: what are the implications of rooftop solar for energy justice? Drawing on a case study from southern Arizona, we use urban political ecology (UPE) to analyze debates about rooftop solar that speak to three types of justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition. While dominant justice claims revolve around the distribution of costs through rates, competing claims emphasize procedural and recognition (in)justice. Focusing on political economy, power relations, and the materiality of the grid, we reframe the utility company's cost shift argument as a strategic narrative and explain why this understanding of justice is recognized as legitimate while others are not. We propose that UPE can further an energy justice analysis by understanding procedural and recognition injustice as systemic products of rate of return regulation, and the material configuration of the electric grid.Keywords: urban political ecology, energy justice, rooftop solar, decentralized energy, electric utility regulation

Focusing on the expanding realm of international adjudication, this paper approaches justice from the domain of the empirical and shows - through a careful, interview-based case-study analysis in the WTO-EU context - that justice in the transnational context is not only a contested concept, but also a multi-faceted one, deeply embedded in notions such as the rule of law, fairness, equality, transformation, and cooperation. Whereas in the past, the primary, if not the sole role of international courts was that of settling disputes, in their modern legalized reincarnation these empowered international institutions have come to be seen primarily as enforcement mechanisms; mechanisms that have been put in place by states in order to give effect to their originally negotiated commitments and to hold states (or other entities) accountable for the international rules agreed-upon. Within this common enforcement-centered discourse of international courts, in turn, the natural tendency has so far been to think of 'justice' mainly through its 'legal' or 'rule of law' dimension. This paper challenges this enforcement-centered discourse. Focusing on the vibrant WTO dispute settlement system (DSS) and the rich experience of the EU in that system, the paper argues that the current enforcement-oriented debate of international courts, and the WTO DSS in particular, is lacking in several fundamental aspects. First, it brushes aside other important roles served by the DSS, and consequently overshadows the manifold social outcomes - beyond rule-compliance - produced by this system. Second, the prevalent rule-enforcement discourse further works, in turn, as to mask the multiple challenges of justice encapsulated in international disputes reaching the DSS's docket, and obstructs the need to explore other conceptions of justice - beyond its formal legalprocedural meaning - such as global distributive, corrective, or transformative justice, through which the outcomes generated by this international adjudicatory system may (and should) be evaluated. Against this backdrop, the paper puts forwards a broad multifunctional account of the WTO DSS, which goes beyond the prevalent view of the system as primarily an enforcement mechanism, portraying it instead as a system of multiple, competing, and shifting roles. Among them, and at the center of the paper, the role of providing an orderly mechanism of renegotiation, redistribution, and settlement, that essentially allows WTO Members to readjust their original WTO commitments and reallocate their burdens and benefits of international cooperation, and thereby to arrive at new - at times not fully legally-compliant - but not necessarily 'unjust' cooperative and sustainable social outcomes. This discussion paper is part of a series of contributions to the conference "Towards a Grammar of Justice in EU Law', which took place on 6-7 November 2014 at VU University Amsterdam, sponsored by ACCESS EUROPE Amsterdam, VU Centre for European Legal Studies and the Dutch Research Council VENI grant.

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1: Introduction -- Settler-Colonialism -- Indigenous Environmental Justice -- The Organisation of the Book -- References -- 2: Environmental Justice and Indigenous Environmental Justice -- EJ: Distributive Justice -- Procedural Justice -- Recognition Justice -- Critique of Recognition -- Beyond Recognition: Indigenous Ontologies and Epistemologies -- Conclusion -- References -- 3: 'The past is always in front of us': Locating Historical Māori Waterscapes at the Centre of Discussions of Current and Future Freshwater Management -- Te Ao Māori (The Māori World) -- Knowledge, Values and Guiding Principles -- Waterscapes of the Waipā -- Waste and Water: The Two Should Never Mix -- Te Ao Māori at the Time of European Contact -- Divergent Understandings of Land: Rights Versus Ownership -- Lead up to Colonisation: 1830s -- Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) -- Historical Context: The Invasion, Raupatu (Confiscation) and Alienation of Whenua 1863-1885 -- Conclusion -- References -- 4: Remaking Muddy Blue Spaces: Histories of Human-Wetlands Interactions in the Waipa¯ River and the Creation of Environmental Injustices -- Settler Imaginative Geographies of the Waipa¯: 1850s-1860s -- Post-Invasion Realities: Life on/in the Wetlands -- Māori Engagements with Wetlands and the Settler-Colonial State -- Government Responses -- Te Kawa Wetlands and the Operations of the Kawa Drainage Board -- Conclusion -- References -- 5: A History of the Settler-Colonial Freshwater Impure-Ment: Water Pollution and the Creation of Multiple Environmental Injustices Along the Waipaˉ River -- Water Pollution: An Unacknowledged Problem -- Consequences of Pollution on Health -- Disposal of Waste -- The Resource Management Act and the Limits of Recognition.

Resumen: Este artículo, que parte de las teorías liberalesde la justicia distributiva, muestra cómo la luchapor los derechos de las mujeres es una lucha por su reconocimientoy por la justicia. A partir de ahí, se haceun recorrido por el concepto de reconocimiento y empoderamiento.En este sentido, se plantea cómo hablardel empoderamiento de las mujeres requiere una miradacompleja que visibilice la opresión a la que se ven sometidasen muchos de los ámbitos de su vida pública y privada.Así mismo, puesto que los modelos de desarrolloeconómico pueden ser también una forma de exclusión yopresión de las mujeres pobres, se hace importante detenerseen el análisis del tema del desarrollo y la pobreza.Palabras clave: androcentrismo, mujeres, reconocimiento,empoderamiento, justicia, pobreza.Women's Empowerment: A Struggle for Justice,Autonomy and RecognitionAbstract: This article shows how the struggle forwomen's rights can be understood as a struggle for recognitionand justice. It starts reviewing the liberal theoriesof distributive justice and from there it considers the conceptsof recognition and empowerment, to demonstratehow to talk of women's empowerment it is necessary tohave a complex vision of the problem that recognizes thedifferent shades, result of the imbrication of oppressionsthat they are subjected to. Also, since economic models ofdevelopment can be a source of exclusion and oppressionfor poor women, it is important to analyze the topics ofdevelopment and poverty.Key words: androcentrism, women, recognition, , empowerment,justice, poverty.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate senior managers' satisfaction with pay in the Nigerian Civil Service.Design/methodology/approachA field study was undertaken to test the hypotheses. The sample was drawn from senior managers in the Nigerian Civil Service. A quantitative methodological approach was used based on questionnaire designed to measure the variables that literature review has identified as having relationship with pay satisfaction.FindingsThe finding of this research paper shows that pay incentive scheme is a distinctive dimension of pay satisfaction among senior managers in the Nigerian Civil Service; and the perception of pay‐for‐performance determines the level of satisfaction with pay.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample size is very small relative to the total federal civil service population. Only senior managers were selected for questioning and may not reflect the general opinion in the Nigerian Civil Service. The sample is limited to the Federal Civil Service and excludes state and local government services in a federally governed country.Practical implicationsThe study has important implications for organisations and human resource practitioners in Nigeria to design their compensation and benefit programmes.Originality/valueThis research is one of the few studies that explore pay incentive schemes as a distinct dimension of pay satisfaction relevant to the Nigerian work environment. It adds value to the study of organisational justice by demonstrating that procedural justice, interactional justice, and distributive justice, influence pay satisfaction.

'From Global Poverty to Global Equality' provides a philosophical exploration of some of the central questions in the flourishing debate on global justice: Do we have a duty to help eradicate global poverty? Do we also have a duty to pursue global equality? What makes such demands morally justifiable?

Focusing on the expanding realm of international adjudication, this paper approaches justice from the domain of the empirical and shows -through a careful, interview-based case-study analysis in the WTO-EU context- that justice in the transnational context is not only a contested concept, but also a multi-faceted one, deeply embedded in notions such as the rule of law, fairness, equality, transformation, and cooperation. Whereas in the past, the primary, if not the sole role of international courts was that of settling disputes, in their modern legalized reincarnation these empowered international institutions have come to be seen primarily as enforcement mechanisms; mechanisms that have been put in place by states in order to give effect to their originally negotiated commitments and to hold states (or other entities) accountable for the international rules agreed-upon. Within this common enforcement-centered discourse of international courts, in turn, the natural tendency has so far been to think of "justice" mainly through its "legal" or "rule of law" dimension. This paper challenges this enforcement-centered discourse. Focusing on the vibrant WTO dispute settlement system (DSS) and the rich experience of the EU in that system, the paper argues that the current enforcement-oriented debate of international courts, and the WTO DSS in particular, is lacking in several fundamental aspects. First, it brushes aside other important roles served by the DSS, and consequently overshadows the manifold social outcomes -beyond rule-compliance- produced by this system. Second, the prevalent rule-enforcement discourse further works, in turn, as to mask the multiple challenges of justice encapsulated in international disputes reaching the DSS's docket, and obstructs the need to explore other conceptions of justice -beyond its formal legalprocedural meaning- such as global distributive, corrective, or transformative justice, through which the outcomes generated by this international adjudicatory system may (and should) be evaluated. Against this backdrop, the paper puts forwards a broad multifunctional account of the WTO DSS, which goes beyond the prevalent view of the system as primarily an enforcement mechanism, portraying it instead as a system of multiple, competing, and shifting roles. Among them, and at the center of the paper, the role of providing an orderly mechanism of renegotiation, redistribution, and settlement, that essentially allows WTO Members to readjust their original WTO commitments and reallocate their burdens and benefits of international cooperation, and thereby to arrive at new -at times not fully legally-compliant- but not necessarily "unjust" cooperative and sustainable social outcomes. This discussion paper is part of a series of contributions to the conference "Towards a Grammar of Justice in EU Law', which took place on 6-7 November 2014 at VU University Amsterdam, sponsored by ACCESS EUROPE Amsterdam, VU Centre for European Legal Studies and the Dutch Research Council VENI grant. (author's abstract)

This Report was written within the framework of Work Package 6 "Struggles for Justice''.

The capability approach developed by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has become an important new paradigm in thinking about development. However, despite its theoretical and philosophical attractiveness, it has been less easy to measure or to translate into policy. This volume addresses these issues in the context of poverty and justice. Part I offers a set of conceptual essays that debate the strength of the often misunderstood individual focus of the capability approach. Part II investigates the techniques by which we can measure and compare capabilities, and how we can integrate them into poverty comparisons and policy advice. Finally, Part III looks at how we can apply the capability approach to different regions and contexts. Written by a team of international scholars, The Capability Approach is a valuable resource for researchers and graduate students concerned with the debate over the value of the capability approach and its potential applications

A debate between two groups of scholars has dominated bankruptcy scholarship for the past decade. The first group, often referred to as the creditors' bargain theorists, argues that creditors' agreements with debtors create entitlements to payment the proper role of the bankruptcy system, therefore should be to benefit creditors by enforcing rules to which creditors would have agreed before bankruptcy. The second group of scholars contends that the goals of the bankruptcy system should not be limited to the interests of creditors. Instead, they maintain that the bankruptcy system, as a part of our country's wider system of social protection, should further a variety of social interests. Professor Mann joins the debate by providing a theoretical justification for the position that the bankruptcy system should pursue distributive goals beyond the enforcement of the creditors' bargain. Specifically, Professor Mann examines principles of distributive justice and explains that the government's role in creating and supervising the bankruptcy system entitles it to any value created by that system above what would have been created by state-law remedies. Focusing on utilitarian and autonomy-based perspectives, he suggests that creditors are entitled only to what they could have expected to receive in the absence of a bankruptcy system, and that the government may use any additional value to further any of its legitimate interests.

This study explored the extent to which two theoretically derived individual differences (equity sensitivity and exchange ideology) moderated the effects of injustice on behavioral reactions. Participants ( N = 707) completed hypothetical vignettes that manipulated distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice and assessed potential reactions in terms of task performance, citizenship, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior. Results showed that exchange ideology, but not equity sensitivity, emerged as a significant moderator of several justice-outcome relationships. In addition, a usefulness analysis comparing the moderating potential of the more narrow equity sensitivity and exchange ideology variables to the broader Big Five revealed that the two narrow variables were more impactful moderators than were the Big Five, though these differences were because of the effects of exchange ideology.

The article considers the phenomenon of social justice, which helps to better understand the essence of each era and its social transformations. No political or ideological orientation can circumvent the notion of justice without defining one's point of view on this issue. The complexity of social relations in modern society has increased attention to the issue of justice. We are faced with the need, relying on the positive trends of the past, to discard the obsolete and take real steps towards the modernization of society. Therefore, it is necessary to provide it with forms that meet the modern objective interests of the people. That is why the problem of justice is especially relevant today. However, it must be borne in mind that the ideas and ideals of justice, like all others, are deeply historical. They organically combine what is temporary and inevitable, changeable and stable. Tracing the historical development of these ideas, we can not ignore their interpretation in the philosophical works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. For the first time in the history of public opinion, Socrates raised the question of a rational knowledge of the principle of justice, rather than the acceptance of some universal truth, sanctified by age-old traditions. This truth is the fruit of the intense work of the mind and heart. You need to get to it. It needs to be opened, and only a sage can afford it. Aristotle noted that all people have an idea of justice. However, everyone perceives it differently. Not everyone sees the measure of dignity and virtue in the same thing: the citizens of a democratic society see it in freedom, the oligarchs in wealth, the aristocrats in valor and glory, and so on. It follows that distributive justice cannot be universal, but depends on the social order and the prevailing system of social values. By asserting the connection between virtue and wisdom, glorifying the beauty of mind, consciousness, defending the idea of expediency, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle thus logically proved the essence and foundations of understanding justice. It can be argued that they laid the "cornerstone" in the foundation of the European tradition of philosophical and sociological elaboration of this vital problem. ; У статті розглянуто феномен соціальної справедливості, що допомагає глибше зрозуміти сутність кожної епохи й її соціальних перетворень. Жодне політичне та ідеологічне спрямування не може обійти поняття справедливості, щоб не визначити свою точку зору з даного питання. Складність соціальних відносин у сучасному суспільстві підвищила увагу до питання справедливості. Ми стоїмо перед необхідністю, опираючись на позитивні тенденції минулого, відкинути все застаріле і здійснити реальні кроки на шляху модернізації суспільства. Тому варто надати йому форм, що відповідають сучасним об'єктивним інтересам народу. Ось чому сьогодні особливо актуальною є проблема справедливості. Однак потрібно враховувати, що ідеї та ідеали справедливості, як і всі інші, глибоко історичні. У них органічно поєднане те, що минає і неминуче, мінливе і стійке. Простежуючи історичний розвиток цих ідей, не можна пройти повз їх трактування у філософській творчості Сократа, Платона, Аристотеля. Уперше в історії суспільної думки Сократ поставив питання про раціональне пізнання принципу справедливості, а не про прийняття на віру якоїсь загальної істини, освяченої віковими традиціями. Ця істина – плід інтенсивної роботи розуму і серця. До неї треба дістатися. Її потрібно відкрити, а це до снаги лише мудрецеві. Аристотель зазначав, що уявлення про справедливість мають усі люди. Однак усі сприймають її по-різному.Мірило гідності та чеснот не всі бачать в одному і тому ж: громадяни демократичного суспільства бачать йогоу свободі, олігархи – у багатстві, аристократи – у доблесті і славі тощо. Звідси випливає, що розподільна справедливість не може мати універсальний характер, а залежить від суспільного устрою і від панівної системи соціальних цінностей. Стверджуючи зв'язок між чеснотою і мудрістю, звеличуючи красу розуму, свідомості, захищаючи ідею доцільності, Сократ, Платон, Аристотель у такий спосіб логічно довели суть та основи розуміння справедливості. Можнастверджувати, що вони заклали «наріжні камені» у фундамент європейської традиції філософського та соціологічного розроблення цієї життєво важливої проблеми.

Key Features:A thought-provoking philosophical journey through macro-economics and the development of the two giants of the 20th century - communism and capitalismA practical guide and blueprint to a stewardship-based approach of the 21st centurySuitable for both an interested general audience and as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate studentsEach chapter concludes with extensive questions suitable for private study or classroom discussion.