正义的统治

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Timothy Endicott
{"title":"正义的统治","authors":"Timothy Endicott","doi":"10.1093/icon/moac109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Law can secure some aspects of justice in a political community. Yet the law should not generally prohibit injustices by private persons or give recourse against them. That would be tyranny. It may seem that the law should, by contrast, prohibit all injustices in the conduct of government, and give recourse against them. In this article I argue against that seemingly attractive idea. I do so by reference to three kinds of public injustice: in voting, in legislation, and in adjudication. I claim that those kinds of public injustice are not generally matters for the law. Preventing or repairing injustice is not enough to justify legal prohibitions or legal recourse against wrongs. The justification of legal measures depends on a political principle: that the law ought to make the political community a good one.","PeriodicalId":51599,"journal":{"name":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rule of justice\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Endicott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icon/moac109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Law can secure some aspects of justice in a political community. Yet the law should not generally prohibit injustices by private persons or give recourse against them. That would be tyranny. It may seem that the law should, by contrast, prohibit all injustices in the conduct of government, and give recourse against them. In this article I argue against that seemingly attractive idea. I do so by reference to three kinds of public injustice: in voting, in legislation, and in adjudication. I claim that those kinds of public injustice are not generally matters for the law. Preventing or repairing injustice is not enough to justify legal prohibitions or legal recourse against wrongs. The justification of legal measures depends on a political principle: that the law ought to make the political community a good one.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac109\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个政治共同体中,法律可以保障某些方面的正义。然而,法律一般不应禁止私人的不公正行为或给予他们追索权。那将是暴政。相反,法律似乎应该禁止政府行为中的一切不公正,并给予追索权。在这篇文章中,我反对这个看似有吸引力的想法。我这样做是指三种公共不公正:投票、立法和裁决。我认为这些公共不公正行为一般不属于法律管辖范围。防止或纠正不公正并不足以证明法律禁止或对错误的法律追索是正当的。法律措施的正当性取决于一个政治原则:法律应当使政治共同体成为一个良好的共同体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The rule of justice
Law can secure some aspects of justice in a political community. Yet the law should not generally prohibit injustices by private persons or give recourse against them. That would be tyranny. It may seem that the law should, by contrast, prohibit all injustices in the conduct of government, and give recourse against them. In this article I argue against that seemingly attractive idea. I do so by reference to three kinds of public injustice: in voting, in legislation, and in adjudication. I claim that those kinds of public injustice are not generally matters for the law. Preventing or repairing injustice is not enough to justify legal prohibitions or legal recourse against wrongs. The justification of legal measures depends on a political principle: that the law ought to make the political community a good one.
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
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
67
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信