是走,还是留?侵略国的公司

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS
Rolf Brühl
{"title":"是走,还是留?侵略国的公司","authors":"Rolf Brühl","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05790-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In response to Russia’s war of aggression and the accompanying human rights violations in Ukraine, several scholars have called for all multinational companies to divest and leave the country; otherwise, they become accomplices to the aggressor. This article reconstructs the arguments in favor of this general call. The first contribution of this article is to extend complicity theory to the context of crimes of aggression and atrocities to promote this demand. Although this extension of complicity theory ensures internal coherence, the call for a general divestment of all companies is tantamount to comprehensive economic sanctions. In contrast, recent developments in sanction theory as part of just war theory suggest that targeted sanctions are the legitimate sanctions that states prefer. Therefore, the second contribution is to evaluate sanctions morally and analyze and discuss the moral implications of three categories of goods and services (sanctioned, essential, and nonessential). This discussion shows no moral justification for a general call for all companies to leave an aggressor state. Companies have moral obligations to comply with legitimate sanctions, moral duties concerning essential goods, and moral permissions concerning nonessential goods.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should They Go, or May They Stay: Companies in Aggressor States\",\"authors\":\"Rolf Brühl\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10551-024-05790-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In response to Russia’s war of aggression and the accompanying human rights violations in Ukraine, several scholars have called for all multinational companies to divest and leave the country; otherwise, they become accomplices to the aggressor. This article reconstructs the arguments in favor of this general call. The first contribution of this article is to extend complicity theory to the context of crimes of aggression and atrocities to promote this demand. Although this extension of complicity theory ensures internal coherence, the call for a general divestment of all companies is tantamount to comprehensive economic sanctions. In contrast, recent developments in sanction theory as part of just war theory suggest that targeted sanctions are the legitimate sanctions that states prefer. Therefore, the second contribution is to evaluate sanctions morally and analyze and discuss the moral implications of three categories of goods and services (sanctioned, essential, and nonessential). This discussion shows no moral justification for a general call for all companies to leave an aggressor state. Companies have moral obligations to comply with legitimate sanctions, moral duties concerning essential goods, and moral permissions concerning nonessential goods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Business Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05790-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05790-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

针对俄罗斯在乌克兰发动的侵略战争以及随之而来的侵犯人权行为,一些学者呼吁所有跨国公司撤资并离开乌克兰;否则,它们就会成为侵略者的帮凶。本文重新构建了支持这一普遍呼吁的论点。本文的第一个贡献是将共谋理论扩展到侵略罪和暴行的范畴,以推动这一要求。虽然共谋理论的这一扩展确保了内部的一致性,但呼吁所有公司普遍撤资无异于全面经济制裁。与此相反,作为正义战争理论一部分的制裁理论的最新发展表明,有针对性的制裁才是国家所青睐的合法制裁。因此,第二个贡献是对制裁进行道德评价,并分析和讨论三类商品和服务(受制裁的、必要的和非必要的)的道德影响。这一讨论表明,普遍呼吁所有公司离开侵略国在道义上是站不住脚的。公司在道德上有义务遵守合法制裁,在道德上有责任提供必需品,在道德上有权利提供非必需品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should They Go, or May They Stay: Companies in Aggressor States

In response to Russia’s war of aggression and the accompanying human rights violations in Ukraine, several scholars have called for all multinational companies to divest and leave the country; otherwise, they become accomplices to the aggressor. This article reconstructs the arguments in favor of this general call. The first contribution of this article is to extend complicity theory to the context of crimes of aggression and atrocities to promote this demand. Although this extension of complicity theory ensures internal coherence, the call for a general divestment of all companies is tantamount to comprehensive economic sanctions. In contrast, recent developments in sanction theory as part of just war theory suggest that targeted sanctions are the legitimate sanctions that states prefer. Therefore, the second contribution is to evaluate sanctions morally and analyze and discuss the moral implications of three categories of goods and services (sanctioned, essential, and nonessential). This discussion shows no moral justification for a general call for all companies to leave an aggressor state. Companies have moral obligations to comply with legitimate sanctions, moral duties concerning essential goods, and moral permissions concerning nonessential goods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信