Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- About the Editor and Contributors -- Introduction -- 1. The Military and Alternative Security: New "Missions" for Stable Conventional Security -- 2. Technology and Alternative Security: A Cherished Myth Expires -- 3. Law and Alternative Security: Toward a Just World Peace -- 4. Politics and Alternative Security: Toward a More Democratic, Therefore More Peaceful, World -- 5. Economics and Alternative Security: Toward a Peacekeeping International Economy -- 6. Psychology and Alternative Security: Needs, Perceptions, and Misperceptions -- 7. Religion and Alternative Security: A Prophetic Vision -- 8. Toward Post-Nuclear Global Security: An Overview -- Selected Bibliography -- List of Acronyms -- Index -- About the Book.

While few would deny that present generations have a moral obligation to preserve the environment for future generations, some theorists reject the existence of a legal duty in this regard. This article takes the opposite view. It argues that ample juridical as well as ethical social justice theory—contractarian distributive and reciprocity-based theories prominent among them—establishes that future generations have a legal right to a clean and healthy environment. But most helpful in ensuring intergenerational ecological justice, the author contends, is a respect-based theory of social justice which at its core honors the values that underwrite human rights law and policy inclusively conceived and embraced.

In his recent book The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, Thomas Franck defines "legitimacy" as it applies to the rules applicable among states. "Legitimacy," he writes, "is a property of a rule or rule-making institution which itself exerts a pull toward compliance on those addressed normatively because those addressed believe that the rule or institution has come into being and operates in accordance with generally accepted principles of right process.In adopting Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, implicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq in response to Iraq's August 2, 1990 invasion and subsequent occupation of Kuwait, the United Nations Security Council made light of fundamental UN Charter precepts and thereby flirted precariously with "generally accepted principles of right process." It eschewed direct UN responsibility and accountability for the military force that ultimately was deployed, favoring, instead, a delegated, essentially unilateralist determination and orchestration of world policy, coordinated and controlled almost exclusively by the United States. And, in so doing, it encouraged a too-hasty retreat from the preeminently peaceful and humanitarian purposes and principles of the United Nations. As a consequence, it set a dubious precedent, both for the United Nations as it stands today and for the "new world order" that is claimed for tomorrow.