Suchergebnisse

The impact of the thought of political scientist/philosopher John Rawls on Croatian political science in general, & the department of political science at the U of Zagreb in particular, is commemorated with this overview of the significance of Rawls's writings on justice, tolerance, & the spirit of pluralism as part of a conference held at the university on 7-8 Mar 2003. The effect of Rawls's Theory of Justice on Croatian political philosophy is as great as that of Hobbes's Leviathan & Rousseau's Social Contract. Rawls is commended for his wisdom & call for tolerance, a value in short supply both in recent Eastern European & American history. A. Siegel

Considers the application of formalized models in the study of public administration in the federally structured American administration. The theory of American federalism has taught us that the expenses of the implementation of political decisions are inversely proportionate to the administrative level of their application: the expenses are bigger if the implementation is done at lower administrative levels, ie, state or local, instead of by federal authorities. On the other hand, this theory claims that decision-making expenses are proportionate to the level of decision making: the lower the decision-making level, the smaller the expenses. The American experience in the arena of energy policy -- oil & gas -- confirms the model's rationale, & it is applicable to other fields: the optimal effect & the minimal expenses have been achieved in the situation in which political regulations are decided on at the state level, while their implementation lies in the domain of federal government. 1 Table, 3 Figures, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this text the author deals with the analysis of the fundamental legal texts regulating local self-government & administration in the Republic of Croatia & to what extent they are 'the fall guys' to be blamed for the state the systems of local self-government & administration are in. He concludes that these laws are a major generator (though not the only one) of the crisis of local self-government & administration in the Republic of Croatia. 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

Ages ago, Plato understood justice as the purport & the essential purpose of the very existence of the state. Though Plato distinguishes between the political justice of the state & the personal justice of the individual soul, it was Aristotle who in his practical philosophy developed, apart from the general justice, an appropriate understanding of the special or particular justice & its significance for social progress. The first part of this paper deals with the different types of justice, & the second with civil society. In order to understand the contemporary theories of political justice & the roles of civil society in its realization, the author looks into the history of the European political thought & "civil society," since "civic" or "civil society" ("societas civilis"), was originally a political society. In modernity, Hegel began differentiating between the state as a political community & the "civil society" as a nonpolitical society; his intention was not to separate but to integrate them by means of the public scrutiny & the citizens' governance, Thus Hegel linked Locke's & Montesquieu's opposing definitions of the relationship between the civil society & the state. This is all the more important since Hegel's philosophy is often misinterpreted as the state totalitarianism since we overlook the dangers coming, especially today, both from the civil society reduced to economy & the absolute state, the dangers that Hegel, with his concept of customariness, detected & avoided. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes Fayola's work in light of recent trends in the theory of administration. He looks into Fayola's organic approach & the immanent division of the content of his work into constitutive & functional aspects. Fayol's concepts are built on the foundations of the science of administration, since they are used as the criteria for classification of subject matter & for defining management. Also, his concepts are so well-defined that only an occasional new concept is added to them. The shortcomings of Fayol's thinking are the product of the limitations of his time & his internal organic approach, as well as of the basically static structure of organization & administration. 1 Table, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the relationship among atomism, pluralism, & democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian & Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness & justice as forms of substituting democratic decision making in multicultural communities. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the relationship among atomism, pluralism, & democracy from the standpoint of contemporary Rawlsian & Kafkian theory of justice. The author views fairness & justice as forms of substituting democratic decision making in multicultural communities. Adapted from the source document.

The author reviews the interchange between Jurgen Habermas & John Rawls, published in The Journal of Philosophy in Mar 1995. Habermas's criticism of Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is constructive & immanent. Habermas raises three objections against Rawls's theory. The first is that Rawls's design of original position is not adequate to clarify & secure the standpoint of impartial judgment of the principles of justice. The second is that Rawls should make a sharper distinction between the question of justification & that of acceptance of a theory of justice. The third is that Rawls does not succeed in bringing the liberties of moderns into harmony with the liberties of pre-moderns. The first two of Habermas's objections reveal the main thought of his criticism of Rawls, which is that Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is substantive, not procedural, & therefore is wrong. The third of Habermas's objections refers to a consequence of Rawls's theory of a rigid boundary between the political & non-political identities of citizens. In his reply to Habermas, Rawls emphasizes two main differences between his own & Habermas's theory. The first is that Habermas's theory is "comprehensive," while Rawls's is "political." The is that Habermas uses as means of representation the situation of ideal discourse, which is a part of his theory of communicative action, while Rawls uses the original position. Rawls answers in turn Habermas' objections & defends his liberal theory of justice as fairness as substantive justice. Adapted from the source document.

The author reviews the interchange between Jurgen Habermas & John Rawls, published in The Journal of Philosophy in Mar 1995. Habermas's criticism of Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is constructive & immanent. Habermas raises three objections against Rawls's theory. The first is that Rawls's design of original position is not adequate to clarify & secure the standpoint of impartial judgment of the principles of justice. The second is that Rawls should make a sharper distinction between the question of justification & that of acceptance of a theory of justice. The third is that Rawls does not succeed in bringing the liberties of moderns into harmony with the liberties of pre-moderns. The first two of Habermas's objections reveal the main thought of his criticism of Rawls, which is that Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is substantive, not procedural, & therefore is wrong. The third of Habermas's objections refers to a consequence of Rawls's theory of a rigid boundary between the political & non-political identities of citizens. In his reply to Habermas, Rawls emphasizes two main differences between his own & Habermas's theory. The first is that Habermas's theory is "comprehensive," while Rawls's is "political." The is that Habermas uses as means of representation the situation of ideal discourse, which is a part of his theory of communicative action, while Rawls uses the original position. Rawls answers in turn Habermas' objections & defends his liberal theory of justice as fairness as substantive justice. Adapted from the source document.

The paper begins with an overview of contemporary liberal-egalitarian theories in order to show the diversity among different understandings of justice. Then, the paper draws a borderline between luck egalitarianism (Arneson, G. A. Cohen, Roemer) and a pro-democratic, relational egalitarianism (Rawls, J. Cohen, Anderson, Barry) that focuses on the society's structure, i.e. the production of its inner relations. The following part introduces the idea of reflective equilibrium and its theoretical benefits in terms of 'de-metaphysised' ethics. Furthermore, this part elaborates Dworkin's liberal principle of justice as the basis of his liberal moral doctrine. Finally, the paper shows that a 'de-metaphysised' ethics could not be equated with the conception of justice as mutual advantage, and neither is it lost in an Archimedean skepticism. By referring to Barry's work, the paper elaborates the idea of justice as impartiality through the debate between moral objectivism and skepticism. The paper ends with synthesising a conclusion of the previous three parts. Also, it defines justice as implied by Rawls' liberal egalitarianism. Ultimately, the paper identifies the need for further research of the topic that would elaborate and answer the questions highlighted by this paper. Adapted from the source document.

The author describes the communitarian critique of John Rawls, mostly that by Michael Walzer in Spheres of Justice (1983). The main communitarian objection to Rawls's theory of justice is that it is objectivistic & thus a modern variant of Platonism. Contrary to this attitude, Walzer insists on the theory of justice which takes as its starting point particular values of a society or culture & tries to formulate a critique of the American society as a community subject to "market imperialism." The response by Rawls & other liberals to the communitarian critique has proved that his theory is neither Platonic, transcendentally Kantian, nor abstractly objectivistic. Rawls & liberals are aware that their principles of justice have come into being within a specific European tradition of democratic constitutionalism, but that those principles aspire toward achieving universality, at least in those communities that are willing to accept a democratic constitutional system. Adapted from the source document.

An analysis of the relations among the government departments traditionally responsible for American foreign policy at the dawn of the Cold War during President Harry Truman's mandate, enables us to draw tentative conclusions regarding the policies & activities of the administration of today's President George W. Bush II. Bush's administration is expected to come up with an urgent definition of the new direction of US foreign policy, & provide the corresponding means & resources required for its implementation in this era of globalization, post-militarism, & the singular role that US plays in world affairs. Using as his starting point the assumption that without an awareness of the significance of a transformation of state power (the transformation carried out by the Truman administration), it is not possible to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the direction & the speed of the changes the Bush administration is to initiate in the foreign policy arena. The author first reviews the genesis of the goals of the US foreign policy during Truman's presidency, then looks into the manner & the forms of identification of foreign policy objectives &, finally, deals with the strategies mapped out for the realization of the identified foreign policy goals. By reviewing this important period in the history of US foreign policy, the author outlines all the major issues confronting the designers of today's American foreign policy & thus provides some cumulative & comparative insights. Adapted from the source document.