Suchergebnisse

This article presents a comparison of three approaches to international justice. The first part of the article focuses on the realist paradigm, the second section analyzes various liberal approaches, and the third part presents the basic ideas of neomarxism. The largest part of the article is devoted to a critical discussion of existing liberal approaches -- liberal institutionalism (R. Keohane), political liberalism (J. Rawls), democratic liberalism (J. Habermas), globalist utilitarianism (P. Singer), globalist egalitarianism (Ch. Beitz, T. Pogge), and liberal impartialism (B. Barry). The article concludes by synthesizing the insights of the three broad normative positions into a realist, yet at the same time critical, liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

The article discusses the normative responses of the tradition of Rawls's political philosophy to the fact that globalization is not working according to the principles of distributive justice and that the existing global distribution of income and wealth is highly unjust. The first section presents the cosmopolitan theories of Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge, both of whom draw their concepts from Rawls's masterpiece "Theory of Justice". These advocates of the Rawlsian approach see our world as forming one basic global structure that entails complex economic, political and cultural relationships across state borders. These relationships have important distributive implications that require the application of Rawlsian principles of justice at the transnational level. In the second part, Rawls's work developed in "The Law of Peoples", which is the extension of his own approach to the transnational domain, is critically examined. Its major notions (Society of Peoples, liberal and decent peoples, outlaw states and burdened societies, etc.), as well as the reasons for rejecting this approach from a cosmopolitan point of view are closely analyzed. In the third part, globalism and statism are conceived of as two main paradigms of current debate on global and international justice. The article concludes with the thesis that Rainer Forst's conception of transnational justice may provide the possible transcendence of this opposition. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines the relationship between transitional justice and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The author aims to answer the question how, to what extent and on the basis of what mechanisms transitional justice contributes to reconciliation. In the first, descriptive part of the article she introduces the term and the mechanisms of transitional justice, and in the second, analytical part she examines their concrete form in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their contribution to the process of reconciliation, which is understood here as a renewal of relationships between individuals and a recognition of one's own responsibility for past wrongs. The author concludes that transitional justice contributes to the reconciliation process only in a limited way because of its low trustworthiness, its low visibility and the overly small investments in its measures. To bring about a societal change transitional justice needs to be implemented better, in a more thorough and sensitive way and especially visibly, above all in terms of restorative justice and truth telling. Adapted from the source document.

The thesis deals with a particular sphere of peacebuilding: transitional justice & the building of a new social conscience. The main aim of this thesis is to focus on the interactions between the international & national levels of reconciliation in the post-conflict societies & to verify the argument that peacebuilding is more effective in those countries where the reconciliation is built on the cooperation of the international community & the original domestic institutions. Adapted from the source document.

Clearly visible changes of forms, symbolism and patterns of transnational collective mobilization and political protest have taken place roughly over the course of the last decade. The aim of this article is to introduce an actor that represents these changes (and one of the key non-state collective actors of the present) -- the Global Justice Movement (GJM) -- through mapping the major related debates. Basically, two principal axes of both academic and political discourse on GJM are distinguished: first, there are the debates on the static or lasting attributes of the movement, and second, there are those on the dynamics and processional character of the movement. This text focuses on a dynamic approach to the study of collective action and strives to incorporate fundamental analytical and political arguments in their respective fields of study. Adapted from the source document.

Contemporary normative debates about justice increasingly revolve around the problem of extending the principles of justice (and corresponding theories) beyond the level of the nation-state, to which they have been for a long time confined. The article below discusses several authors from the wide and heterogenous politico-philosophical current of liberal egalitarianism, which can be considered one of the leading contemporary schools of thought, or the mainstream. There are two interrelated goals in this enterprise: First, to show how varied and cross-cutting the normative landscape of justice is, even within this specific current. Second, since I concentrate on the problem of extending the principles and theories of justice to supra-state levels, the universality (or the "cosmopolitan reach") of these ideas stands out as one of the most interesting features of these discussions. The work of Brian Barry, David Miller, Onora O'Neill and John Rawls exemplify many crucial issues that any theory of justice with cosmopolitan ambitions must cope with. The article concludes that the concept of (universal) human rights seems to be the only value that can buttress any cosmopolitan theories of justice; however, the normative debate over (1) their grounding, scope and corresponding obligations and (2) their connection to a comprehensive account of a good society, i.e. liberal democracy -- and therefore, the acknowledged danger of ethnocentrism -- is still far from being resolved. Adapted from the source document.