Catálogo de publicaciones - libros
Current Debates in Global Justice
Gillian Brock ; Darrel Moellendorf (eds.)
Resumen/Descripción – provisto por la editorial
No disponible.
Palabras clave – provistas por la editorial
No disponibles.
Disponibilidad
Institución detectada | Año de publicación | Navegá | Descargá | Solicitá |
---|---|---|---|---|
No detectada | 2005 | SpringerLink |
Información
Tipo de recurso:
libros
ISBN impreso
978-1-4020-3347-6
ISBN electrónico
978-1-4020-3847-1
Editor responsable
Springer Nature
País de edición
Reino Unido
Fecha de publicación
2005
Información sobre derechos de publicación
© Springer 2005
Cobertura temática
Tabla de contenidos
Toward an International Rule of Law: Distinguishing International Law-Breakers from Would-be Law-Makers
Robert E. Goodin
An interesting fact about customary international law is that the only way you can propose an amendment to it is by breaking it. How can that be differentiated from plain law-breaking? What moral standards might apply to that sort of international conduct? I propose we use ones analogous to the ordinary standards for distinguishing civil disobedients from ordinary law-breakers: would-be law-makers, like civil disobedients, must break the law openly; they must accept the legal consequences of doing so; and they must be prepared to have the same rules applied to them as everyone else.
Pp. 225-246
Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations
John W. Lango
This paper explores the question of whether the United Nations should engage in preventive military actions. Correlatively, it asks whether UN preventive military actions could satisfy just war principles. Rather than from the standpoint of the individual nation state, the ethics of preventive war is discussed from the standpoint of the UN. For the sake of brevity, only the legitimate authority, just cause, last resort, and proportionality principles are considered. Since there has been disagreement about the specific content of these principles, a third question also is explored: How should they be formulated? Moreover, these questions are addressed in the context of a particular issue: the goals of the non-proliferation and the abolition of weapons of mass destruction.
Pp. 247-268
Does the Gats Undermine Democratic Control over Health?
Gopal Sreenivasan
This paper examines the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which is one of the World Trade Organisation’s free trade agreements. In particular, I examine the extent to which the GATS unduly restricts the scope for national democratic choice. For purposes of illustration, I focus on the domestic health system as the subject of policy choice. I argue that signatories to the GATS effectively acquire a to maintain a domestic health sector with a certain minimum degree of privatisation. Like constitutional obligations, the restrictions the GATS imposes on the freedom of future generations to structure their domestic health sector are (i) very difficult, though not strictly impossible, to alter; and (ii) not chosen in any ordinary sense by the subject generation. To gain democratic legitimacy, therefore, the relevant provisions of the GATS must pass some higher standard of democratic scrutiny, such as ratification by a supermajority. Ordinary legislative ratification does not suffice.
Pp. 269-281
Global Justice for Humans or for All Living Beings and What Difference it Makes
James P. Sterba
I begin with an account of what is deserved in human ethics, an ethics that assumes without argument that only humans, or rational agents, count morally. I then take up the question of whether nonhuman living beings are also deserving and answer it in the affirmative. Having established that all individual living beings, as well as ecosystems, are deserving, I go on to establish what it is that they deserve and then compare the requirements of global justice when only humans are taken into account with the requirements of global justice when all living beings are taken into account.
Pp. 283-300