Suchergebnisse

Cover; Half Title; Series Page; Title Page; Copyright Page; Table of Contents; List of Tables; Acknowledgements; 1. Introduction: Why Neutrality?; Why Neutrality?; Arguments for Studying Neutrality; What Is Neutrality?; Is There a World History of Neutrality?; Territorial and Maritime Neutrality; Is Neutrality Possible?; Collective Security and Neutrality; Neutrality and International Relations Theory; Remarks to the Reader; Further Reading; 2. Birth of Maritime Neutrality: 1500-1650; Introduction; The Scramble for the Oceans, 1492-1522; Oceanic Claims and the Asian Political Order

The aim of this article is to assess the sustainability of neutrality in the early Cold War. This issue is examined through the study of Switzerland's armament policy. The Swiss were able to maintain their status of a permanent neutral after the Second World War, and thus succeeded in upholding a centuries-long policy. Their armed neutrality, however, required modern weaponry. In search of this material Switzerland turned to the West, while refusing to purchase weapons from the East. The paper argues that Switzerland's self-imposed policy of armed neutrality increased Swiss dependence on western armaments, and thereby endangered its neutrality status and policy. Adapted from the source document.

THE ARTICLE DEALS WITH THE DEFINING OF SWEDISH NEUTRALITY IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE COLD WAR. THE ESTABLISHED BUT THE REASONS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE DISCUSSED. THE MAIN REASON FOR ADAPTATION IS IDENTIFIED AS THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT'S AMBITIOUS ECONOMIC POLICY WHICH LED TO ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY UPON THE USA, ACCEPTANCE OF MARSHALL AID AND ECONOMIC INCORPORATION INTO THE WEST. SWEDEN MANAGED TO SHOW THE US GOVERNMENT THAT FORMAL NEUTRALITY COULD BE COMBINED WITH PRACTICAL MEASURES THAT IN FACT MEANT ADAPTATION TO US WISHES. THE ARGUMENT IS ALSO THAT THE USA USED ECONOMIC PRESSURE TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSES, AS WHEN SWEDEN SUBMITTED TO US DEMANDS REGARDING STRATEGIC EXPORTS TO EASTER EUROPE. CONCERN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWEDISH TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS IMPORTANT WHEN THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT YIELDED TO THE US DEMANDS. BY FORMULATING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE USA AS AN EXPRESSION OF SWEDEN'S AUTONOMOUSLY DECIDED POLICY, SWEDEN COULD STILL CLAIM THAT FORMAL NEUTRALITY HAS BEEN MAINTAINED.

In dieser Dissertation argumentiere ich (gegen John Rawls und andere) erstens dafür, dass perfektionistische Gründe gute Gründe für Gesetze sind, die ein Staat erlässt, ohne, zweitens, die These zu teilen, die Joseph Raz in The Morality of Freedom vertritt, dass nur die Gesetze eines Staates legitim sind, die mit perfektionistischen Gründen gerechtfertigt werden können – weil alle anderen die Autonomie der Bürger notwendig verletzen würden. Im ersten Punkt halte ich den Perfektionismus für die Standardposition, und die gängigen liberalen Argumente für einen neutralen Staat überzeugen nicht, egal ob sie als ökumenische oder nicht-neutrale vertreten werden. Die ökumenischen Argumente, wie sie etwa bei Rawls und Bruce Ackerman zu finden sind, überzeugen nicht, weil sich ihre behauptete Neutralität letztlich als schädlich parteiisch erweist. Die nicht-neutralen Argumente, die unter anderem von Rawls und Charles Larmore angeführt werden, reichen nicht aus, um die Notwendigkeit eines Prinzips der staatlichen Neutralität zu begründen. Und zwar aus verschiedenen Gründen: Einer dieser Gründe ist, dass die Berufung der Konsequenzialisten auf den Wert der Autonomie übersieht, dass der Wert der Autonomie in Wertkonflikten anderen Werten nicht überlegen ist, und ein zweiter Grund wäre, dass Rawls in seinem Appell an die "Bürden des Urteils", etwa in seinem Buch Political Liberalism, eher voraussetzt als zeigt, dass Respekt vor der Autonomie der Bürger die staatliche Förderung des Guten ausschließt. Zu dem zweiten Punkt mache ich geltend, dass es unerheblich ist, ob die These von Raz, dass Autonomie wertlos wird, wenn den Bürgern nicht ausreichend gute Optionen an Lebensformen zur Verfügung stehen, zwischen denen sie wählen können, überzeugend ist oder nicht, weil daraus nicht folgt, dass der Staat das Gute in jedem möglichen politischen System fördern muss. Es ist einfach nicht der Fall, dass die Zahl der den Staatsbürgern offenstehenden wertvollen Lebensformen unter eine Schwelle fällt, die den Wert der Autonomie erst möglich macht, sobald der Staat das Gute nicht fördert. ; I argue, in this dissertation, first, that, contrary to the views of John Rawls and others, governments are entitled to make policy on the basis of perfectionist judgements, but second, that the claim, in particular as it is argued for in Joseph Raz's The Morality of Freedom, that governments must make policy on a perfectionist basis, failing which the autonomy of citizens will be damaged, cannot be sustained. I argue the first point on the grounds that perfectionism is the default position, and that standard liberal arguments, which I categorise as either ecumenical or non-neutral, for a principle of state neutrality fail. The ecumenical arguments, which I discover in the writings of Rawls and Bruce Ackerman, fail because their purported neutrality turns out to be damagingly partisan. The non-neutral arguments, which I discover in the writings of, amongst others, Rawls and Charles Larmore, fall short of establishing the necessity of a principle of state neutrality for a number of widely-differing reasons, which include, for example, that a consequentialist appeal to the good of autonomy cannot establish that the good of autonomy trumps all other goods, or any other combination of goods, in all conflicts of goods which might arise, and that Rawls's appeal to the burdens of judgement, founds in his Political Liberalism, assumes rather than shows that respect for the autonomy of citizens rules out state promotion of the good. I argue the second point on the grounds that although Raz is correct in arguing that autonomy is of no value unless the options between which citizens can choose are worthwhile forms of life, it does not follow that the state must promote the good in any and every possible political dispensation, as it is simply not the case that, in general, unless the state promotes the good, the number of valuable forms of life available to citizens will fall below the threshold which is necessary for their autonomy to be worth having.