Home  About us  Contact
 

International Justice (international + justice)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Rawls and Derrida on the Historicity of Constitutional Democracy and International Justice

CONSTELLATIONS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CRITICAL AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY, Issue 1 2009
Johan van der Walt
First page of article [source]

The International Criminal Court: Reforming the Politics of International Justice

GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION, Issue 1 2003
Spyros Economides
The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into effect on 1 July 2002. This article gives an account of the historical background to the ICC and an overview of the Court's Statute, remit and powers. It is argued that the ICC is a highly politicized legal institution which will only be effective through inter-state cooperation. Despite its lengthy historical antecedents and legal precedents, prudence suggests that , due to the nature of international politics , the establishment of the ICC should be viewed as the beginning of a cumulative process of reforming the politics of international justice rather than the end of a process of transformation in international law. [source]

Global Inequality and International Institutions

METAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 1-2 2001
Andrew Hurrell
This article considers the links between international institutions and global economic justice: how international institutions might be morally important; how they have changed; and at what those changes imply for justice. The institutional structure of international society has evolved in ways that help to undercut the arguments of those who take a restrictionist position towards global economic justice. There is now a denser and more integrated network of shared institutions and practices within which social expectations of global justice and injustice have become more securely established. But, at the same time, our major international social institutions continue to constitute a deformed political order. This combination of density and deformity shapes how we should think about international justice in general and has important implications for the scope, character, and modalities of global economic justice. Having laid out a view of normative development and where it leads, the article then examines why international distributive justice remains so marginal to current practice. [source]

The Dilemma of Double Standards in U.S. Human Rights Policy

PEACE & CHANGE, Issue 4 2003
Scott Turner
In May 2000 the United States was voted off of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This reflected the frustration of much of the international community with the United States' increasingly obstructionist approach to international institutionalism. The United States' opposition to the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) reflects its pursuit of double standards in human rights policy. Double standards are manifest in U.S. support for Israel and Turkey with their records of gross human rights violations. They likewise are discernable in the strategic motives behind the 1999 Kosovo intervention. The proposed ICC challenges the United States' use of human rights rhetoric to pursue unilateral objectives by forging a more neutral means of prosecuting international justice. If the United States is to recover its status as the world's human rights leader, it must renew its commitment to multilateral institutionalism and must avoid double standards that undermine the legitimacy of human rights discourse. [source]

GLOBAL JUSTICE AND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY, Issue 221 2005
Dale Dorsey
To a great extent, recent discussion of global obligations has been couched in the language of human rights. I argue that this is a mistake. If, as many theorists have supposed, a normative theory applicable to obligations of global justice must also respect the needs of justice internal to recipient nations, any such theory cannot take human rights as an important moral notion. Human rights are inapplicable for the domestic justice of poor nations, and thus cannot form a plausible basis for international justice. Instead, I propose an alternative basis, a form of welfarist maximizing consequentialism. My alternative is superior to rights-based theories in dealing with the special problems of justice found in poor nations. [source]