Suchergebnisse

Defends the recent cosmopolitan turn in political & international relations theory, focusing on the concept of harm & the notion of cosmopolitan harm conventions (CHCs). Briefly, harm is defined as "evil as done or suffered by some person or thing" & is considered universal despite cross-cultural variations in what constitutes harm. Harm conventions provide harm its public meaning & establish what is permissible, obligatory, & officially proscribed. These too are universal; however, cosmopolitan forms are not. CHCs center on the idea that differences between insiders & outsiders are not always morally relevant. After addressing some criticisms of cosmopolitanism, three observations on why the harm principle has a place in international ethics are delineated. Various kinds of harm are identified, drawing on the English school to frame an analysis of CHC development in modern international society & to contemplate future developments. The English school's concern resides generally on an idea of concrete harm, which is intentional harm inflicted by one group on another on the basis of assumed cultural or racial superiority. The humanitarian law of war & international trusteeship are two measures for combating such harm. Various post-WWII reasons justifying the development of new CHCs are contemplated, eg, the rise in civil vs interstate war, economic globalization, global industrialization, structure of the world order, & environmental degradation. Most extant cosmopolitan law does not contend with vulnerability to the harm in global economic processes & environmental damage. Further, CHCs tend to mirror the values of the dominant powers & are geared toward protecting their interests. The meaning of world citizenship absent a world state & in a system where sovereign states view themselves as capable of promoting the ideal of national citizenship is explored, providing three main answers related to the project of transcending traditional international law interested in the rights & duties of states for a world law targeting the rights & duties of individuals. These are concerned with the realm of cosmopolitan duty, the sphere of cosmopolitan rights, & the project of building a global democratic public sphere & are linked to the project of creating CHCs. J. Zendejas

Defends the recent cosmopolitan turn in political & international relations theory, focusing on the concept of harm & the notion of cosmopolitan harm conventions (CHCs). Briefly, harm is defined as "evil as done or suffered by some person or thing" & is considered universal despite cross-cultural variations in what constitutes harm. Harm conventions provide harm its public meaning & establish what is permissible, obligatory, & officially proscribed. These too are universal; however, cosmopolitan forms are not. CHCs center on the idea that differences between insiders & outsiders are not always morally relevant. After addressing some criticisms of cosmopolitanism, three observations on why the harm principle has a place in international ethics are delineated. Various kinds of harm are identified, drawing on the English school to frame an analysis of CHC development in modern international society & to contemplate future developments. The English school's concern resides generally on an idea of concrete harm, which is intentional harm inflicted by one group on another on the basis of assumed cultural or racial superiority. The humanitarian law of war & international trusteeship are two measures for combating such harm. Various post-WWII reasons justifying the development of new CHCs are contemplated, eg, the rise in civil vs interstate war, economic globalization, global industrialization, structure of the world order, & environmental degradation. Most extant cosmopolitan law does not contend with vulnerability to the harm in global economic processes & environmental damage. Further, CHCs tend to mirror the values of the dominant powers & are geared toward protecting their interests. The meaning of world citizenship absent a world state & in a system where sovereign states view themselves as capable of promoting the ideal of national citizenship is explored, providing three main answers related to the project of transcending traditional international law interested in the rights & duties of states for a world law targeting the rights & duties of individuals. These are concerned with the realm of cosmopolitan duty, the sphere of cosmopolitan rights, & the project of building a global democratic public sphere & are linked to the project of creating CHCs. J. Zendejas