Suchergebnisse

The problem of refugee asylum is seen to force decisions on ethical, political, legal, & economic grounds. Historically, the church, synagogue, & mosque have been recognized as the proper places of refuge for persons fleeing political & other persecution. The ethical grounds for this are statements in the Hebrew, Islamic, & Christian scriptures commanding the exercise of compassion & help for those in need. Exactly what this means in terms of offering asylum is differently interpreted, however, by the major churches. Discussed is whether it is legal to give asylum to people who have not obtained or have been denied political asylum. Civil disobedience is analyzed in this regard, & eight criteria are identified that justify its use in specific cases. It is hoped that US foreign policy can be changed so that the granting of asylum will not lead to the murder of those who are deported or who escape. The case of Sana Chirino Amaya, a 24-year-old Salvadorian who had his head cut off when he returned, is a dramatic case in point. A Comment by Leonard W. Doob (Yale U, New Haven, Conn) is provided. Modified AA.

Ernest Gellner's "Reflections on Philosophy, Especially in America" in the June Worldview contains so many perceptive and challenging statements that it merits a reply. It is also sufficiently confused and dubious in its conclusions as to require criticism. As a teacher of philosophy for over two decades, I am concerned about philosophy's role in contemporary and national life, and hence I am stimulated to make the following points.What is the essence of Professor Gellner's assessment?

Examines various ethical dilemmas including disproportionate power of the US.

"Dieser Artikel geht von der Prämisse aus, daß die Theorien von Wissenschaftlern und politischen Entscheidungsträgern über internationale Politik in der Zeit nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges davon geprägt sind, wie diese theoretisch über die Lehren des Kalten Krieges denken. Sechs solch weit verbreitete, aber, wie der Autor argumentiert, fragwürdige theoretische Lehren, werden gegenwärtig vorgebracht: daß der lange Frieden zwischen den großen Mächten ermöglicht wurde durch Bipolarität, militante Eindämmung, Vorbereitung auf den Krieg, Allianzen, nukleare Abschreckung und hegemoniale Führung durch die USA. Diese Behauptungen, wird zu bedenken gegeben, sollten ohne Beweise nicht hingenommen werden, zumal sie auf einer irrigen Logik und falschen Darstellungen der Geschichte des Kalten Krieges beruhen. Von Wissenschaftlern wird verlangt, das Vertrauen in ihre Validität aufzugeben, und der Beitrag endet mit der Vorstellung einiger Rezepte für den Aufbau neuer hybrid-realistischer und neo-liberaler Modelle für das Verstehen von Weltpolitik im Gefolge des Kalten Krieges." (Autorenreferat)

PART I: The violent origins of the contemporary World Order -- Great-power struggles for primacy in the modern era -- World War I and the Versailles Settlement -- World War II and the birth of the Liberal Order -- PART II: The fitful evolution of the contemporary World Order -- The Cold War and its consequences -- America's Unipolar moment -- Unraveling the Liberal Order -- PART III: Forging a New World Order -- The range of Great-Power choice in a time of system transformation -- Rethinking World Order.