Crime, justice and the legitimacy of military power in the international sphere

This article examines how a discourse of crime and justice is beginning to play a significant role in justifying international military operations. It suggests that although the coupling of war with crime and justice is not a new phenomenon, its present manifestations invite careful consideration of the connection between crime and political theory. It starts by reviewing the notion of sovereignty to look then at the history of the criminalisation of war and the emergence of new norms to constrain sovereign states. In this context, it examines the three ways in which military force has recently been authorised: in Iraq, in Libya and through drones in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. It argues the contemporary coupling of military technology with notions of crime and justice allows the reiteration of the perpetration of crimes by the powerful and the representation of violence as pertaining to specific dangerous populations in the space of the international. It further suggests that this authorises new architectures of authority, fundamentally based on military power as a source of social power.

גבול (Border)

This paper is a reexamination of the concept of the geopolitical border through a critical analysis of prevalent conceptualizations of borders, as they are articulated in the fields of geopolitics, political theory and international relations. Suggesting that thinking of borders as the derivative of territorial definitions disregards the dependency of territoriality and sovereign space on the praxes of border making, this paper offers an analytic distinction between normative articulations of borders and the border as a political practice. This distinction enables the identification of partial and incoherent border making processes. Consequently, the creation of borders can be analyzed as an effect of a multiplicity of performative praxes, material, juridical and otherwise discursive, that operate in relation to the management of space and attribute it with geopolitical distinctions. Furthermore, the paper suggests that these praxes, which appear in dispersed sites and in a wide variety of loci, are intrinsically linked to different spatial practices of population management, of governmentality. Thus, I offer a reading of borders as a praxis which manages binary differentiations of matrixes of governmentality, which create schisms in the population as a totality, through the deployment of the evocation of sovereignty as the legitimizing source of this differentiation or for the means necessary for its sustainment.

Deliberative Perfectionism: Why We Can and Should Talk about the Good

In contemporary political theory, perfectionists believe that the state should promote substantive conceptions of the good through its legislation. Supporters of neutrality, instead, claim that the state should refrain from doing so. In this article I analyse perfectionism in relation to Jürgen Habermas’ theory of discourse and deliberative politics (1996) and critique Habermas’ distinction between ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’ discourses (1984, 1990). By relating Habermas’ theory to George Sher’s account of perfectionism (1997), I argue that we can establish the meta-ethical grounds for a model of deliberation encompassing ethical matters (that is, questions concerning the good life) not confined to the limits of specific communities. I conclude by arguing that ethical deliberation is not only feasible but also desirable. Given the fact of ethical pluralism, and in order to show respect towards their fellow citizens, political perfectionists ought to be ready to show how their ethical claims (which they want to see translated into state policy) relate to deeper meta-ethical human goals on which we can ideally find a consensus through deliberation.

Social Equality: On what it means to be equals

The first collected volume on social and relational equality.
Addresses a gap in the literature - while many philosophers have pointed to the importance of social equality, it requires much more theoretical development, which this volume aims to provide.
Offers a unique answer to the debate about whether or not equality is valuable.
Features a foreword by eminent political theorist David Miller
Includes new contributions by some of the most well-known contemporary moral and political philosophers, such as Samuel Scheffler and Jonathan Wolff.
Is equality valuable? This question dominates many discussions of social justice, which tend to center on whether certain forms of distributive equality are valuable, such as the equal distribution of primary social goods. But these discussions often neglect what is known as social or relational equality. Social equality suggests that equality is foremost about relationships and interactions between people, rather than being primarily about distribution.

A number of philosophers have written about the significance of social equality, and it has also played an important role in real-life egalitarian movements, such as feminism and civil rights movements. However, as it has been relatively neglected in comparison to the debates about distributive equality, it requires much more theoretical attention. This volume brings together a collection of ten original essays which present new analyses of social and relational equality in philosophy and political theory. The essays analyze the nature of social equality, as well as its relationship to justice and politics.

Readership: The book is primarily aimed at professionals in the field - philosophers (especially in moral, social and political philosophy) and political theorists. It is also aimed at the academic library market. Moreover, the book should be of interest to advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students attending courses on theories of equality and/or social justice.

Foreign Direct Investment and Country Risk::Is There Evidence of 'Malign Investment in the Former Soviet States'

This paper examines the relationship between concepts of MNE bargaining power and broader concepts of political power. It notes that the analysis of MNE bargaining power presents a number of puzzles from the perspective of political theory. These puzzles arise, in part, from the fact that the overlap between traditional concepts of MNE bargaining power and broader concepts of political power is only a partial one. Despite these problems, it is suggested that political- theory-based approaches can add realism to our understanding of bargaining power.

Revisiting Iris Marion Young on Normalisation, Inclusion and Democracy

Vieten's edited collection brings together papers that were given at the I M Young Memorial Symposium 'Inclusion and Democracy Revisited', held in Amsterdam in 2012. The different chapters presented explore in-depth, Young's models of a 'politics of cultural difference', and a 'politics of positional difference' read in combination with her critique of normalisation. Young regards the latter as decisive to any change for the better when reaching out politically to a fairer and more just democratic society.
With the current political, economic and socio-cultural crisis in mind, the contemporary world of global speed and transformed societies in and beyond Europe needs a refinement of what we understand 'normalisation' and 'difference' to be. How can we connect to each other, and in what ways can Young's 'structural inequality model' be applied to develop alternative outlooks on how to enhance inclusion and democracy in different nation states?

Calvinist Absolutism: Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power

Archbishop James Ussher's manuscript notebooks allow us to observe the making of a Calvinist absolutist and to orientate the archbishop's beliefs about royal power within European Reformed thought as a whole. By 1643, Ussher was preaching a polished and complete theory of absolute royal power, and it is possible to track the development of this political theory forward from his undergraduate days in the 1590s. Throughout his life Ussher engaged anxiously with Reformed theologians abroad, who generally favored limited rather than absolute monarchy. Nevertheless, Ussher shared with these Reformed colleagues both an antipathy to aspects of Aristotelian politics and a commitment to the divine institution of royal power. Finally, despite Ussher's hostility to Laudian innovations in the Irish Church, his heartfelt political beliefs made him a firm supporter of Stuart absolutism throughout the Three Kingdoms.

The demandingness of Nozick’s ‘Lockean’ proviso

Interpreters of Robert Nozick’s political philosophy fall into two broad groups concerning his application of the ‘Lockean proviso’. Some read his argument in an undemanding way: individual instances of ownership which make people worse off than they would have been in a world without any ownership are unjust. Others read the argument in a demanding way: individual instances of ownership which make people worse off than they would have been in a world without that particular ownership are unjust. While I argue that the former reading is correct as an interpretive matter, I suggest that this reading is nonetheless highly demanding. In particular, I argue that it is demanding when it is expanded to include the protection of nonhuman animals; if such beings are right bearers, as more and more academics are beginning to suggest, then there is no nonarbitrary reason to exclude them from the protection of the proviso.

Struggles against Injustice:: Contemporary Critical Theory and Political Violence

This article investigates a significant problem in contemporary critical theory, namely its failure to address effectively the possibility that a campaign of political violence may be a legitimate means of fighting grave injustice. Having offered a working definition of ‘political violence’, I argue that critical theory should be focused on experiences of injustice rather than on ideals of justice. I then explore the reasons as to why, save for some intriguing remarks on retrospective legitimation, Jürgen Habermas has not addressed this issue directly. While Axel Honneth's recognition theory may have greater potential here, the absence of explicit consideration of the matter by him leaves considerable work to do. I introduce five questions in the concluding section that provide a starting point in setting out an appropriately stringent, normative test for claims that support violent action against injustice.