Suchergebnisse

THE RECENT LITERATURE ON EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCE EVINCES TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THE TASK OF DEFINING JUSTICE IN A MANNER THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO SOCIAL DIFFERENCE. THE FIRST, THE JURIDICAL MODEL OF JUSTICE TOWARD GROUPS, ACCEPTS THE IDEA OF LIBERAL IMPARTIALITY. ON THE BASIS OF THAT IDEAL, THE JURIDICAL MODEL BEGINS WITH THE PREMISE THAT JUSTICE SHOULD BE DEFINED THROUGH A PROCESS OF REASONING THAT IS SHIELDED FROM THE TUG AND PULL OF PARTICULARIST POLITICAL INTERESTS. IN CONTRAST, THE POLITICAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENCE REJECTS THE NOTION THAT JUSTICE CAN BE DEFINED PRIOR TO POLITICS. INSTEAD, ITS ADVOCATES MAINTAIN THAT STANDARDS OFJUSTICE CAN ONLY AVOID REPRODUCING INEQUALITY IF THEY ARE DEFINED WITHIN A POLITICAL PROCESS THAT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MARGINALIZED GROUPS' PERSPECTIVES TO BE EXPRESSED AND HEEDED. IN THIS ESSAY, THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE POLITICAL APPROACH TO DEFINING JUSTICE TOWARD GROUPS NOT ONLY HAS IMPORTANT ADVANTAGES OVER, BUT IS ACTUALLY IMPLICIT (ALTHOUGH UNDEVELOPED), IN THE JURIDICAL APPROACH. THE CLASH BETWEEN THE TWO APPROACHES TO RECONCILING EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCE BRINGS TO LIGHT A PROFOUND NEED TO RECONCEIVE THE ASPIRATION TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND, IN THE PROCESS, TO RECONSIDER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL SPHERES WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACIES.

Moral universalism, or the idea that some system of ethics applies to all people regardless of race, color, nationality, religion, or culture, must have a plurality over which to range - a plurality of diverse persons, nations, jurisdictions, or localities over which morality asserts a universal authority. The contributors to Moral Universalism and Pluralism , the latest volume in the NOMOS series, investigate the idea that, far from denying the existence of such pluralities, moral universalism presupposes it. At the same time, the search for universally valid principles of morality is deeply

Globalization generates new structures of human interdependence and vulnerability while also posing challenges for models of democracy rooted in territorially bounded states. The diverse phenomena of globalization have stimulated two relatively new branches of Political Theory: theoretical accounts of the possibilities of democracy beyond the state; and comparative Political Theory, which aims at bringing non-Western political thought into conversation with the Western traditions that remain dominant in the Political Theory academy. This article links these two theoretical responses to globalization by showing how comparative Political Theory can contribute to the emergence of new global 'publics' around the common fates that globalization forges across borders. Building on the pragmatist foundations of deliberative democratic theory, it makes a democratic case for comparative Political Theory as an architecture of translation that helps deliberative publics grow across boundaries of culture. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Globalization generates new structures of human interdependence and vulnerability while also posing challenges for models of democracy rooted in territorially bounded states. The diverse phenomena of globalization have stimulated two relatively new branches of political theory: theoretical accounts of the possibilities of democracy beyond the state; and comparative political theory, which aims at bringing non-Western political thought into conversation with the Western traditions that remain dominant in the political theory academy. This article links these two theoretical responses to globalization by showing how comparative political theory can contribute to the emergence of new global "publics" around the common fates that globalization forges across borders. Building on the pragmatist foundations of deliberative democratic theory, it makes a democratic case for comparative political theory as an architecture of translation that helps deliberative publics grow across boundaries of culture.

Islam generally, & Muslim immigrant communities in particular, have recently been targeted for criticism by Western academics & in popular Western media. Here, the substance of these criticisms is explored, weighing them against the beliefs & practices of Muslim immigrants in Western liberal democracies. Three distinct questions are addressed: (1) What sort of cultural adaptations is it reasonable for liberal democratic states & societies to expect immigrants to make, & what kinds of adaptation is it unreasonable to demand from them? (2) How vulnerable are Islamic beliefs & practices to the criticisms commonly leveled against them in the name of liberal democracy & gender equality? (3) How strong are the parallels between the claims for political recognition & accommodation that issue from immigrant cultural communities & the claims for recognition & inclusion that issue from groups that have historically been marginalized in liberal democratic societies? Although tensions may exist between the core commitments of liberal democratic societies & some Islamic practices, it is concluded that Western writers exaggerate these tensions. Muslim communities generally pose no greater challenge to liberal societies than do other religious & immigrant communities. Western writers should be chary of rejecting their claims to toleration & accommodation too swiftly. 65 References. Adapted from the source document.

Criminal tribunals, truth commissions, reparations, apologies and memorializations are the characteristic instruments in the transitional justice toolkit that can help societies transition from authoritarianism to democracy, from civil war to peace, and from state-sponsored extra-legal violence to a rights-respecting rule of law. Over the last several decades, their growing use has established transitional justice as a body of both theory and practice whose guiding norms and structures encompasses the range of institutional mechanisms by which societies address the wrongs committed by past regimes in order to lay the foundation for more legitimate political and legal order.In Transitional Justice, a group of leading scholars in philosophy, law, and political science settles some of the key theoretical debates over the meaning of transitional justice while opening up new ones. By engaging both theorists and empirical social scientists in debates over central categories of analysis in the study of transitional justice, it also illuminates the challenges of making strong empirical claims about the impact of transitional institutions. Contributors: Gary J. Bass, David Cohen, David Dyzenhaus, Pablo de Greiff, Leigh-Ashley Lipscomb, Monika Nalepa, Eric A. Posner, Debra Satz, Gopal Sreenivasan, Adrian Vermeule, and Jeremy Webber

First published in 1999 , this book provides an analysis of the role of constitutional governance from an international and interdisciplinary perspective. The range of disciplines represented in the collection of papers aims to open new perspectives on topics that are frequently left to the expert hands of political scientists and layers alone. It reveals scope for the further study of historical, cultural and rhetorical approaches in tandem with traditional approaches. The blend of cross-national experience and comparisons and the fertilisation of one discipline by another should appeal to a wide interdisciplinary audience.