Realism and Kantianism in International Law
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 86, S. 113-118
ISSN: 2169-1118
49 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 86, S. 113-118
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 84, Heft 3, S. 791-793
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 84, Heft 3, S. 807-809
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 83, S. 558-566
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 81, Heft 2, S. 556-562
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 81, Heft 1, S. 173-183
ISSN: 2161-7953
This essay examines the discussion of human rights and domestic jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case. Independently of the final verdict about the lawfulness of U.S. help to the contras under principles of either self-defense or humanitarian intervention, the Court's views on the relationship among human rights, domestic jurisdiction and intervention are wrong in law. Furthermore, the philosophical assumptions of the Judgment are profoundly disturbing. For the reasons set forth below, I submit that the Court's approach embodies a backward view of international law and justice that was totally unnecessary to the resolution of the case.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 79, Heft 1, S. 259-262
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 79, S. 378-379
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: Humanitarian Intervention, S. 93-129
In: The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy
In public political deliberation, people will err and lie in accordance with definite patterns. Such discourse failure results from behavior that is instrumentally and epistemically rational. This book proposes to reduce the scope of majoritarian politics and enlarge markets, offering a comprehensive critique of theories of deliberative democracy.
In public political deliberation, people will err and lie in accordance with definite patterns. Such discourse failure results from behavior that is both instrumentally and epistemically rational. The deliberative practices of a liberal democracy (let alone repressive or non-democratic societies) cannot be improved so as to overcome the tendency for rational citizens to believe and say things at odds with reliable propositions of social science. The theory has several corollaries. One is that much contemporary political philosophy can be seen as an unsuccessful attempt to vindicate, on symbolic and moral grounds, the forms that discourse failure take on in public political deliberation. Another is that deliberative practices cannot be rescued even on non-epistemic grounds, such as social peace, impartiality, participation, and equality. To alleviate discourse failure, this 2006 book proposes to reduce the scope of majoritarian politics and enlarge markets
In: FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 285
SSRN
Working paper
In: Foreign affairs: an American quarterly review, Band 77, Heft 4, S. 122
ISSN: 2327-7793
The current global-justice literature starts from the premise that world poverty is the result of structural injustice mostly attributable to past and present actions of governments and citizens of rich countries. As a result, that literature recommends vast coercive transfers of wealth from rich to poor societies, alongside stronger national and international governance. Justice at a Distance, in contrast, argues that global injustice is largely home-grown and that these native restrictions to freedom lie at the root of poverty and stagnation. The book is the first philosophical work to emphasize free markets in goods, services, and labor as an ethical imperative that allows people to pursue their projects and as the one institutional arrangement capable of alleviating poverty. Supported by a robust economic literature, Justice at a Distance applies the principle of noninterference to the issues of wealth and poverty, immigration, trade, the status of nation-states, war, and aid