Suchergebnisse

Preferential policies, though they are not required by justice, are not seriously unjust; the system from which they depart is already unjust. Deliberate barriers against admitting blacks or women, however, had to be abolished--without explicit barriers discrimination could be conscious or unconscious (motivationally), thus giving support to a self-conscious effort to act impartially. The realization that a social system may continue to deny different races or sexes equal opportunity & equal access to desirable positions even after such barriers have been lifted became evident, since society automatically provides different rewards for different groups. The question is raised: How great is a social contribution to injustice, to what extent is it due to social causes not involving injustice, or to causes which are not social but biological? Can unjustly caused disadvantages be overcome by special programs of preparatory or remedial training? What grounds are to be used in assigning individuals to desirable positions? People less qualified, for whatever reason could be compensated for this disadvantage by having suitably different standards for these different groups. Obviously, this would not be a stable position. Compensatory procedures would then have to be applied in individual bases. The concept of differences advocated by liberals is too weak to combat inequalities dispensed by nature & ordinary workings of the social system. In most societies rewards are a function of demand, & many of the human characteristics most in demand result from gifts & talents. If racial & sexual injustice were reduced we would still be left with the injustice of the smart & the dumb; "at present we do not have a method of divorcing professional status from social esteem & economic reward. In the absence of this, what remains is the familiar task of balancing liberty against equality." S. Cummings.

AbstractWe analyse a labour‐matching model with wage posting, where – reflecting institutional constraints – firms cannot differentiate their wage offers within certain subsets of workers. Inter alia, we find that the presence of impersonal wage offers leads to wage compression, which propagates to the wages for high productivity workers who receive personalized offers.

AbstractAlthough fair trial guarantees have always been recognised as constituting an integral aspect of international arbitral proceedings, this has largely been viewed through the lens of civil procedure rather than as a matter of public law and human rights. This state of affairs has further been compounded by the confidential nature of arbitration and the relative scarcity of set aside (annulment) proceedings before the courts of the seat of arbitration on the grounds of unequal treatment, and before human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, it has always been difficult to reconcile contractual freedom and the advantages offered by arbitration with equal treatment and fair trial claims. This article demonstrates the existence of a set of general principles concerning the meaning and content of equal treatment, which are consistent with its commercial (and civil procedure) and human rights dimensions. The basis of this conclusion is Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as consistently interpreted and adapted by local laws and judgments, arbitral statutes and determinations by the European Court of Human Rights.