Suchergebnisse

The article explores the state of affairs of the basic principles of the Decalogue of Principles of the Helsinki Final Act of the osce after the violations of these principles by the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It gives an overview of the main features of the Decalogue as it was adopted in 1975 as well as more recent developments, in particular in relation to the non-intervention principle. Although several fundamental principles have been seriously violated, the author underlines the continued importance of the Decalogue and the need to make all efforts necessary to repair the amage.

THIS SECTION SUGGESTS SOME PRINCIPLES WHICH THE UN COULD CODIFY TO USE AS A BASE FOR FURTHER ARMS CONTROL NEGOTIATIONS. SOME PRINCIPLES THAT COULD BE CODED INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF SECURITY, THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN RELEVANT NEGOTIATIONS, AND THAT THE STATUS OF WEAPON-FREE STATES BE ESTABLISHED. NEW PRINCIPLES AN EXPLICIT PROHIBITION OF FIRST USE OF WEAPONS COULD BE DEVELOPED. THE UN PROVIDES A SUITABLE VEHICLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH PRINCIPLES.

This article addresses the crucial role political principles play in Hannah Arendt's account of political action and judgment. It proposes a new interpretive framework for understanding their political logic and the varied contexts within which they appear in Arendt's work. Principles can be understood according to three distinct perspectives from which they inspire, guide and organise political action. Reading Montesquieu alongside Kant, Arendt claims that principles operate according to a logic of exemplarity. Political action carries within itself and exemplifies a more general principle, which nevertheless cannot be determined as a rule. It does not establish a universal law according to which future action could be determined, but it does attempt to embody and exemplify a more general standard against which future action could be judged. Arendt argues that attending to the importance of principles in politics offers new possibilities for returning to the past and transforming contemporary practices.

It is with some misgiving that I presume to comment on the Freedom House advertisement, for I rather suspect its message was not addressed to the likes of me in (he first place. It is most unlikely that my personal conviction that the war in Vietnam is an unjust war quite undeserving of.the active or direct support of any religiously motivated American would qualify me as a "moderate" in their eyes. On the other hand, since I support the principle they choose to condemn as some kind of a "fantasy," I feel this gives me something of a right to present these comments as an unsought, and probably unwanted, rebuttal.

The primary aims are to formulate principles conducive to safeguarding fundamental civil rights and to employ the theory to analyse the Skokie affair. The focus is on the ethical question of the constraints on speech. I advance two arguments relating to the 'Harm Principle' and the 'Offence Principle'. Under the 'Harm Principle', restrictions on liberty may be prescribed when there are sheer threats of immediate violence against some individuals or groups. Under the 'Offence Principle', expressions which intend to inflict psychological offence are morally on a par with physical harm and thus there are grounds for abridging them. Moving from theory to practice, in the light of the formulated principles, the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court which permitted the Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie is argued to be flawed.