Ethics & International Affairs最新文献_第10页

Contributors 贡献者

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/s0892679416000381

Kristy A. Belton

引用次数: 0

Ending Statelessness Through Belonging: A Transformative Agenda? 通过归属结束无国籍状态:变革议程?

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000393

Kristy A. Belton

引用次数: 2

EIA volume 30 issue 4 Cover and Back matter 环评第30卷第4期封面及封底

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/s0892679416000563

引用次数: 0

Trials as Messages of Justice: What Should Be Expected of International Criminal Courts? 审判作为正义的信息:国际刑事法院应该期待什么?

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S089267941600040X

T. Meijers, M. Glasius

引用次数: 13

The Lessons of Effective Altruism 有效利他主义的教训

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000484

Jennifer Rubenstein

引用次数: 14

Taking Sides in Peacekeeping: Impartiality and the Future of the United Nations, Emily Paddon Rhoads (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 248 pp., $65.32 cloth. 《在维持和平中站队:公正与联合国的未来》，艾米丽·帕顿·罗兹著(纽约:牛津大学出版社，2016年)，248页，65.32美元。

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000502

R. Reike

引用次数: 9

Are Moral Rights Necessary for the Justification of International Legal Human Rights? 精神权利是国际法人权正当化的必要条件吗?

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000447

Andrea Sangiovanni

{"title":"Are Moral Rights Necessary for the Justification of International Legal Human Rights?","authors":"Andrea Sangiovanni","doi":"10.1017/S0892679416000447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679416000447","url":null,"abstract":"Allen Buchanan’s The Heart of Human Rights  powerfully challenges philosophers writing on human rights to clarify the relation between moral rights and international legal human rights. He claims that the dominant perspectives on human rights are committed to, though they never explicitly avow, what he calls the “Mirroring View,” namely, the view that the existence of an individual moral right is both necessary and sufficient for the justification of any international legal human right (ILHR). Such individual moral rights serve as necessary and sufficient conditions for justifying ILHRs in one of three ways: either () ILHRs have exactly the same content as correspondent moral rights (for example, ILHRs against torture might be justified because there are underlying moral rights against torture); () ILHRs are a specification of a moral human right (in the same way as freedom of the press is a specification of the more general right to freedom of expression); or () ILHRs are instruments for serving or protecting moral rights (for example, a right to democratic participation might serve to protect or realize an underlying moral right to equal status). He then argues that the Mirroring View is false: an underlying moral right is neither a necessary nor sufficient part of the justification of a corresponding ILHR in any of these three senses. In this essay I will not assess whether Buchanan is right to attribute the Mirroring View to any particular contemporary writer on human rights. I will also grant that the existence of a moral right—even a general moral right—is not sufficient to justify a corresponding ILHR. This is because the sufficiency claim strikes me as self-evidently false: not every individual moral right ought","PeriodicalId":424984,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131055272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Fragility of International Human Rights Law 国际人权法的脆弱性

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000460

{"title":"The Fragility of International Human Rights Law","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/S0892679416000460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679416000460","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay I will argue that some philosophers’ optimism about the shape and strength of international human rights legal practice is misguided. Allen Buchanan, for example, claims in his The Heart of Human Rights that there is an area of robust human rights law that amounts to “international law that claims the authority to regulate matters once considered to be the exclusive concern of the state, including the state’s treatment of its own citizens.” Two points can be made to clarify the idea of robustness. First, it suggests that human rights norms make a practical difference in the world. Second, it suggests that there are institutional actors that have the power to make such a difference. On both counts, it is possible to advance skeptical arguments that show that those norms suffer from a lack of normative bite, and that even if those norms were providing clear normative guidance, there are no institutions that are capable of implementing them. Human rights law is not robust and its practice lacks shape and strength. Further, the gap between ideals and practice is only likely to increase rather than the other way around. There is a specific problem that is at stake here: international human rights law claims supremacy over states’ norms. In case of a conflict between international human rights law and domestic law, the former is in principle meant to trump the latter. In practice, this is highly problematic as it requires international human rights norms to be capable of invalidating domestic norms that have been legally and democratically introduced. In other words, international human rights law may challenge the very validity of domestic law. Also it may well create a conflict between international norms and constitutional democracies. This is what Buchanan calls “the problematic supremacy of international human rights.” Buchanan points out that there is no incompatibility between robust","PeriodicalId":424984,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131314133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World, Oliver Morton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 440 pp., $29.95 cloth. 《重塑地球:地球工程如何改变世界》，奥利弗·莫顿著(普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社，2015年)，440页，29.95美元。

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/S0892679416000514

Gernot Wagner

{"title":"The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World, Oliver Morton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 440 pp., $29.95 cloth.","authors":"Gernot Wagner","doi":"10.1017/S0892679416000514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679416000514","url":null,"abstract":"very promising contribution to the literature on norm diffusion. The heavy focus on contestation raises two questions, however. First, what exactly is contested here? Is it really a new understanding of the norm of impartiality that is contested or is it the UN’s embrace of human rights–related norms, such as PoC or RtoP? Often, the contestation that Paddon Rhoads describes revolves around the objective to protect civilians in complex and messy humanitarian emergencies. It seems, therefore, that the real controversy pertains to the UN’s efforts to promote and protect human rights, rather than to the norm of impartiality. While Paddon Rhoads treats these human rights norms as part of the substantive component of impartiality, it is not clear that this helps to accurately capture the nature of the contestation. It also raises the question of whether the procedural and substantive components of the norm of impartiality are of equal importance. Second, how much contestation can a norm take? If “assertive impartiality” is so heavily contested and in fact only promoted by a handful of states, as Paddon Rhoads demonstrates, is it still a norm? In her excellent discussion of the role of norms in international relations, she explains that norms are social facts. Norms exist and exert an influence only because they reflect beliefs that are held intersubjectively. But how much intersubjective agreement is required for an idea to be considered a norm? If “assertive impartiality” is advocated by threepermanentmembersof theUNSecurity Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, and France) but resisted by most other states and even parts of the UN Secretariat, as Paddon Rhoads shows, should we still treat it as anormin the sense that it reflects intersubjectively held beliefs? Such questions aside, Taking Sides in Peacekeeping is an outstanding book and a must read for scholars and practitioners interested in the role of norms in international relations, UN peacekeeping, human rights, and the DRC.","PeriodicalId":424984,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116390790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

EIA volume 30 issue 4 Cover and Front matter 环境影响评估第30卷第4期封面和正面事项

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2016-12-08 DOI: 10.1017/s0892679416000368

引用次数: 0

Ethics &#x0026; International Affairs最新文献

Ethics & International Affairs最新文献