Suchergebnisse

THE NOTION OF "RIGHTS" IN MILL'S UTILITARIANISM IS EXAMINED AS A MEANS OF CLARIFYING HIS PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY AS OUTLINED IN ON LIBERTY. THIS PRINCIPLE IS BEST SEEN AS DEFENDING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM UNLESS A PERSON'S ACTIONS INJURE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. THIS DEFENSIVE APPROACH TO FREEDOM IS SUPPLEMENTED BY AN ASSERTIVE VIEW OF MAN AS AN INDEPENDENT, SPONTANEOUS DEVELOPING CHARACTER.

THE SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HERZEN & JAMES AS HUMANIST THEORETICIANS ARE VERY INTERESTING IN VIEW OF THE ROLES WHICH THEY PLAYED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. RADICAL FREEDOM WAS IMPORTANT TO THE THEORIES OF EACH.

THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES DEMOCRACY AS A SPONTANEOUS ORDER. IT QUOTES F.A. HAYEK FREQUENTLY IN ITS PRESENTATION. IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HAYEK DID NOT INCLUDE DEMOCRACY IN HIS ANALYSIS OF SPONTANEOUS ORDER AND ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT CONSENT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING DEMOCRACY EXCEPT IN THE TRIVIAL SENSE IN WHICH IT UNDERLIES MOST GOVERNMENTS? AND, HOW CAN A PLETHORA OF SPECIAL INTEREST LEGISLATION BE CONSIDERED PART OF A SPONTANEOUS ORDER? IN THIS EXAMINATION, IT ALSO DEMONSTRATES IN WHAT WAYS EGALITARIAN AND MAJORITARIAN POLITICAL MODELS ARE THEORETICALLY INADEQUATE AND EVEN MISLEADING TOOLS FOR HELPING TO UNDERSTAND BOTH DEMOCRACY'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES.

EVERYONE CAN NOW SEE THAT THE OLD ORDER IN EUROPE HAS COLLAPSED; NO ONE CAN YET SEE WHAT NEW ORDER WILL REPLACE IT. THIS ARTICLE SURVEYS THE POTENTIAL FOR INSTABILITY IN EASTERN EUROPE AND THE SOVIET UNION--IN THE ACCELERATED PACE OF CHANGE, IN THE RESURGENCE OF NATIONALISM, AND IN THE DIFFICULTY OF SECURING POLITICAL LEGITIMACY AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS. IT CONSIDERS SOME OF THE SCENARIOS THAT MIGHT DEVELOP IF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFORM FAIL. IT CONCLUDES THAT WESTERN EUROPE WILL BE BEST PLACED TO PRESERVE ITS INTERESTS BY STRENGTHENING THE POLITICAL DIMENSION OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION THROUGH THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY.

THE DECEMBER 1988 BOMING OF PAN AM FLIGHT 103 RAISES AN IMPORTANT LEGAL PROBLEM FOR DECISION-MAKERS CONTEMPLATING RETALIATION AGAINST SUCH ACTS OF TERRORISM. CONCEIVABLY, RETALIATION COULD CONFLICT WITH AND HELP ERODE INTERNATIONAL NORMS OF SELF-DEFENSE. COUNTER-TERRORIST EXPERTS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ESPOUSING THE USE OF FORCE HAVE MINIMIZED, IF NOT IGNORED, THIS POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WORLD ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE 1986 US RAID ON LIBYA AND THE 1985 ISRAELI RAID ON PLO HEADQUARTERS IN TUNISIA REVEAL THAT UNDER LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES FORCE WOULD BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. THE INFORMAL ADJUDICATION OF THESE INCIDENTS BY RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL ACTORS SUGGESTS A TOLERANCE FOR THE RESORT TO FORCE IN THE US CASE AND AMBIVALENCE IN THE ISRAELI CASE. THE US AND ISRAELI CASES GUIDE A SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST TERRORIST BASES IN RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS COULD BE LEGITIMATED. THE RESORT TO FORCE AGAINST SUCH ACTIVITY, IT IS ARGUED, WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE TEST OF NECESSITY, INCLUDING: (1) A PREVIOUS AND ONGOING SERIES OF TERRORIST ATTACKS, AND DEMONSTRATED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE ATTACKS BY THE ACTOR, STATE OR NON-STATE, AGAINST WHOM FORCE IS USED; (2) IMMEDIATELY EXPECTED OR IMMINENT TERRORIST ATTACKS ENDANGERING HUMAN LIFE; AND (3) THE ABSENCE OF NON-FORCIBLE REMEDIES EFFECTIVE IN TERMINATING THE TERRORIST THREAT. IN ADDITION THE AMOUNT OF FORCE WOULD HAVE TO BE PROPORTIONAL, LIMITED TO TARGETS RESPY: 1989