Suchergebnisse

In recent years, a number of important challenges have been raised about whether arguments for granting group rights in virtue of ethnicity can really stand up to scrutiny. Two of the most pressing issues involve whether granting rights to groups in virtue of ethnicity involves a certain unfairness to nonmembers (such as discrimination against nonethnic groups) & whether granting such rights licenses unfairness to members (because they may be oppressed or abused without recourse to the protections of nonmembers). If arguments for indigenous rights are to succeed, they must address these challenges & show how there is no important unfairness to nonmembers or members. Several arguments for indigenous rights are discussed, to show how they fall prey to one or both of the unfairness objections. The article goes on to offer an argument as to how proponents of indigenous rights might respond to claims that such rights discriminate obnoxiously between groups. This approach can accommodate the force of indigenous peoples' claims & so grant certain kinds of groups rights, without at the same time licensing the group's oppression of its more vulnerable members. Moreover, since the argument appeals to considerations typically thought persuasive in liberal theory, it should be attractive to liberals. 27 References. Adapted from the source document.

Examines cosmopolitanism & its claims that nationalism should be subordinate in distributive justice matters. David Held's model of cosmopolitan democracy is reviewed along with Will Kymlicka's points of criticism. It is demonstrated that Kymlicka's complaints neither undercut Held's basic arguments nor discredit the promise of his version of cosmopolitanism. K. Coddon

Many of the best and brightest citizens of developing countries choose to emigrate to wealthier societies, taking their skills and educations with them. What do these people owe to their societies of origin? May developing societies legitimately demand that their citizens use their skills to improve life for their fellow citizens? Are these societies ever permitted to prevent their own citizens from emigrating? These questions are increasingly important, as the gap between rich and poor societies widens, and as the global migration of skilled professionals intensifies. This volume addresses th.

The papers collected in this volume represent some of the finest recent work by political philosophers and political theorists in the area of global justice. Covering both theoretical and applied issues, these papers are distinguished by their exceptional quality. Moreover, they give the reader a sense both of the scope of the field as it is currently emerging and the direction that the debates seem to be taking. This anthology is essential reading for anyone serious about understanding the current pressing issues in Global Justice Studies. With contributions from: Richard Arneson, Charles Beitz, Luis Cabrera, Omar Dahbour, Robert Goodin, Dale Jamieson, John Lango, David Miller, Thomas Pogge, Sanjay Reddy, Mathias Risse, Gopal Sreenivasan, and James Sterba.

In a period of rapid internationalization of trade and increased labor mobility, is it relevant for nations to think about their moral obligations to others? Do national boundaries have fundamental moral significance, or do we have moral obligations to foreigners that are equal to our obligations to our compatriots? The latter position is known as cosmopolitanism, and this volume brings together a number of distinguished political philosophers and theorists to explore cosmopolitanism: what it consists in, and the positive case which can be made for it. Their essays provide a comprehensive overview of both the current state of the debate and the alternative visions of cosmopolitanism with which we can move forward, and they will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, and law