Suchergebnisse

After a brief discussion of the existing literature and a description of the data set, the paper compares the role of four international institutions in two-party disputes in terms of (1) participant behavior and characteristics, (2) relationships between participants, and (3) characteristics of the disputes and institutional responses. The major purpose of the comparison is to assess various middle-range theoretical ideas that have been suggested by scholars and to determine whether the differences on the variables are a function of structural (PCIJ and ICJ versus League and UN) or historical (PCIJ and League versus ICJ and UN) variations. A final section of the paper presents a scheme for further research on the role of international institutions in the international bargaining process.

Discussions of international and of gender justice both legitimately demand that principles of justice abstract from differences between cases and that judgements of justice respond to differences between them. Abstraction and sensitivity to context are often treated as incompatible: abstraction is taken to endorse idealized models of individual and state; sensitivity to human differences is identified with relativism. Neither identification is convincing: abstract principles do not entail uniform treatment; responsiveness to difference does not hinge on relativism. These points are used to criticize discussions of international and gender justice by liberals, communitarians and feminists. An alternative account of justice is sketched, which combines abstract principles with consideration of human differences in the application of principles. The case of poor women in impoverished economies – a hard case both for gender and for international justice – illustrates how universal, abstract principles of justice may not only permit but mandate differentiated application.

DEBATE CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE HAS SHIFTED DURING THIS CENTURY FROM ISSUES OF LEGALITY TO THOSE OF WELFARE. UNDERLYING PRESENT CONTROVERSIES ARE DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE CHARACTER OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY & OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION ITSELF. THE QUESTION IS RAISED OF WHETHER THE PURSUIT OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IS COMPATIBLE WITH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN TERMS OF COMMON RULES.

Debate concerning international justice has shifted during this century from issues of legality to those of welfare. Underlying present controversies are differences regarding the character of international society and of political association itself. One division separates those who accept the premises of the states system from others who look forward to a cosmopolitan world society of individuals. And where some identify international justice with conduct according to common rules, others link it with social and economic equality or the achievement of minimum levels of welfare. The idea of distributive justice reflects the view that law and government should promote the latter ends. This raises the question (explored here using some ideas of Michael Oakeshott's) whether the pursuit of distributive justice is compatible with international relations in terms of common rules.