Suchergebnisse

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 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.

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

URL del artículo en la web de la Revista: https://www.upo.es/revistas/index.php/ripp/article/view/1801 ; El artículo define y analiza la patología filosófica llamada "Giro Moral", a saber, la suposición de que es posible resolver a priori complejos problemas socio-económicos mediante la simple aplicación de principios morales abstractos, sin conceder la debida atención a lo que las ciencias sociales (especialmente, la economía) enseñan acerca de las circunstancias del problema, las consecuencias previsibles delas diversas soluciones institucionales posibles, etc. El pensamiento de Kant con su característico desdén hacia todo lo empírico- constituye el origen probable de este fallo discursivo. Y en la filosofía contemporánea proliferan pensadores "neokantianos", convencidos de que "una vez que descubrimos o formulamos los valores correctos, podemos recomendar leyes e instituciones concretas" (sin necesidad de información empírica): así, Rawls deduce sin más de su "principio de la diferencia"(que ordena la promoción de los peor situados) la deseabilidad de un Estado intervencionista-redistributivo, sin prestar atención a informes empíricos que muestran que el libre mercado podría conseguir ese objetivo promocional más eficazmente. ; This article defines and analyzes the philosophical pathology the author labelsas "Moral Turn", namely, the assumption that it is possible to address complex socio-economic problemsa priori, disregarding what social sciences (especially, economic science) teach about the circumstances of the problem, the predictable consequences of the various institutional arrangements envisageable, etc. Kant's thinking -with its distinctive disdain of all things empirical- constitutes the likely source of this discourse failure. And contemporary philosophy is abundant in "neokantian" thinkers who are persuaded that "once we discover or formulate the right values, we can recommend concrete lawsand institutions [empirical information being thus unnecessary]". Rawls, for one, arguesthat his "difference principle" (which orders the promotion of the least advantaged) ne- cessarily entails the desirability of an interventionist-redistributive state, disregardingempirical surveys showing that free markets could achieve this goal more efficiently. ; Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Philosophers Fernando Tesón and Bas van der Vossen offer contrasting views of humanitarian intervention: as a war aimed at ending tyranny, or as unjustifiable violence. Fernando Tesón argues that humanitarian interventions are sometimes permissible; Bas van der Vossen argues that as a rule they are not. The authors use the tools of modern analytic philosophy, in particular just war theory, to substantiate their claims.