scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Andrew Altman

Bio: Andrew Altman is an academic researcher from Georgia State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Argument & Human rights. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 39 publications receiving 524 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew Altman include Bowling Green State University & Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Papers
More filters
Book
15 Jul 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the role of international criminal law and international distributive justice in defending self-determination and self-government in the context of armed intervention and political assassinations.
Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. Democracy and Self-Determination 3. Secession 4. International Criminal Law 5. Armed Intervention and Political Assassination 6. International Distributive Justice 7. Immigration 8. Conclusion References

131 citations

Book
08 Jun 2021
TL;DR: The first book-length liberal reply to CLS systematically examines the philosophical underpinnings of the CLS movement and exposes the deficiencies in the major lines of CLS argument against liberalism.
Abstract: Scholars in the "Critical Legal Studies" movement have challenged some of the most cherished ideals of modern Western legal and political thought. CLS thinkers claim that the rule of law is a myth and that its defense by liberal thinkers is riddled with inconsistencies. This first book-length liberal reply to CLS systematically examines the philosophical underpinnings of the CLS movement and exposes the deficiencies in the major lines of CLS argument against liberalism.

65 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 1993-Ethics
TL;DR: The authors argue that hate speech can cause serious psychological harm to those at whom it is directed, and that such harm can be justified by hate speech regulation, sweeping or otherwise, and argue that some forms of hate speech inflict on their victims a certain kind of wrong, and it is on the basis of this wrong that regulation is justified.
Abstract: In recent years a vigorous public debate has developed over freedom of speech within the academic community. The immediate stimulus for the debate has been the enactment by a number of colleges and universities of rules against hate speech. While some have defended these rules as essential for protecting the equal dignity of all members of the academic community, others have condemned them as intolerable efforts to impose ideological conformity on the academy. Liberals can be found on both sides of this debate. Many see campus hate-speech regulation as a form of illegitimate control by the community over individual liberty of expression. They argue that hatespeech rules violate the important liberal principle that any regulation of speech be viewpoint-neutral. But other liberals see hate-speech regulation as a justifiable part of the effort to help rid society of discrimination and subordination based on such characteristics as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference. In this article, I develop a liberal argument in favor of certain narrowly drawn rules prohibiting hate speech. The argument steers a middle course between those who reject all forms of campus hatespeech regulation and those who favor relatively sweeping forms of regulation. Like those who reject all regulation, I argue that rules against hate speech are not viewpoint-neutral. Like those who favor sweeping regulation, I accept the claim that hate speech can cause serious psychological harm to those at whom it is directed. However, I do not believe that such harm can justify regulation, sweeping or otherwise. Instead, I argue that some forms of hate speech inflict on their victims a certain kind of wrong, and it is on the basis of this wrong that regulation can be justified. The kind of wrong in question

47 citations

Book
30 Apr 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a review of the legal aspects of targeted killing in the context of self-defense and self-defence in the US military, focusing on the following: 1. Allowing the State to Rebut the Civilian Presumption: Playing Whack-A-Mole Without a Mallet? 2. Targeting Co-belligerents 3. Can Just War Theory Justify Targeted Killing? Three Possible Models 4. Justifying Targeted killing with a Neutral Principle? Part II: NORMATIVE FOUNDations: Law Enforcement
Abstract: PREFACE Introduction PART I: THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: TARGETING NON-COMBATANTS 1. Allowing the State to Rebut the Civilian Presumption: Playing Whack-A-Mole Without a Mallet? 2. Targeting Co-belligerents 3. Can Just War Theory Justify Targeted Killing? Three Possible Models 4. Justifying Targeted Killing With a Neutral Principle? PART II: NORMATIVE FOUNDATIONS: LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WAR? 5. The Ethics of Targeted Killing on a Moral Continuum 6. Targeted Killing as Preemptive Action 7. The Privilege of Belligerency and Formal Declarations of War PART III: TARGETED KILLING AND SELF-DEFENSE 8. Going Medieval: Targeted Killing, Self-Defense, and the Jus ad Bellum Regime 9. Imminence in Justified Targeted Killing 10. Defending Defensive Targeted Killings PART IV: EXERCISING JUDGMENT IN TARGETED KILLING DECISIONS 11. The Importance of Criteria-Based Reasoning in Targeted Killing Decisions 12. Are Targeted Killings Unlawful? A Case Study in Empirical Claims without Empirical Evidence 13. Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective? 14. Efficiency in Bello and ad Bellum: Making the Use of Force Too Easy? PART V: UTILITARIAN TRADE-OFFS AND DEONTOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS 15. Targeted Killing and the Logic of Double Effect 16. Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices 17. Targeted Killing and the Strategic use of Self-Defense INDEX

42 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Oct 2004-Ethics
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that it is permissible to prosecute and punish persons under international law when there are sufficiently widespread or systematic violations of basic human rights in a state, but these violations need not constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, or any such "supercrime".
Abstract: In this article, we critically examine the prevailing justification of international criminal law and defend an alternative approach. We share the prevalent view that a system of such law is both possible and in the process of being created. However, we reject the conventional arguments offered in support of this system. Our alternative line of thinking has the consequence that a justifiable international criminal law can be much broader in scope than its conventional advocates presume. Our view is that it is permissible to prosecute and punish persons under international law when there are sufficiently widespread or systematic violations of basic human rights in a state. The rights violations need not constitute genocide, crimes against humanity, or any such “supercrime.” Instead, the violations may simply be ordinary criminal acts,

35 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a judge in some representative American jurisdiction is assumed to accept the main uncontroversial constitutive and regulative rules of the law in his jurisdiction and to follow earlier decisions of their court or higher courts whose rationale, as l
Abstract: 1.. HARD CASES 5. Legal Rights A. Legislation . . . We might therefore do well to consider how a philosophical judge might develop, in appropriate cases, theories of what legislative purpose and legal principles require. We shall find that he would construct these theories in the same manner as a philosophical referee would construct the character of a game. I have invented, for this purpose, a lawyer of superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen, whom I shall call Hercules. I suppose that Hercules is a judge in some representative American jurisdiction. I assume that he accepts the main uncontroversial constitutive and regulative rules of the law in his jurisdiction. He accepts, that is, that statutes have the general power to create and extinguish legal rights, and that judges have the general duty to follow earlier decisions of their court or higher courts whose rationale, as l

2,050 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: McQueen et al. as mentioned in this paper presented a special symposium issue of Social Identities under the editorship of Griffith University's Rob McQueen and UBC's Wes Pue and with contributions from McQueen, Ian Duncanson, Renisa Mawani, David Williams, Emma Cunliffe, Chidi Oguamanam, W. Wesley Pue, Fatou Camara, and Dianne Kirkby.
Abstract: Scholars of culture, humanities and social sciences have increasingly come to an appreciation of the importance of the legal domain in social life, while critically engaged socio-legal scholars around the world have taken up the task of understanding "Law's Empire" in all of its cultural, political, and economic dimensions. The questions arising from these intersections, and addressing imperialisms past and present forms the subject matter of a special symposium issue of Social Identities under the editorship of Griffith University's Rob McQueen, and UBC's Wes Pue and with contributions from McQueen, Ian Duncanson, Renisa Mawani, David Williams, Emma Cunliffe, Chidi Oguamanam, W. Wesley Pue, Fatou Camara, and Dianne Kirkby. This paper introduces the volume, forthcoming in late 2007. The central problematique of this issue has previously been explored through the 2005 Law's Empire conference, an informal but vibrant postcolonial legal studies network.

1,813 citations

Book
01 Jan 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a thought-provoking overview of the forces that govern international institutions such as the UN, EU and WTO, and the complex relationship that exists between international organizations and their member states.
Abstract: International institutions are powerful players on the world stage, and every student of international law requires a clear understanding of the forces that shape them. For example, with increasing global influence comes the need for internal control and accountability. This thought-provoking overview considers these and other forces that govern international institutions such as the UN, EU and WTO, and the complex relationship that exists between international organizations and their member states. Covering recent scholarly developments, such as the rise of constitutionalism and global administrative law, and analysing the impact of important cases, such as the ICJ's Genocide case (2007) and the Behrami judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (2007), its clarity of explanation and analytical approach allow students to understand and think critically about a complex subject.

249 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The argument developed is that the approach to deliberative democracy may be renewed by rethinking its motivational and cognitive elements.
Abstract: Power in communication takes two main forms. As 'external' power, it consists in the ability to acknowledge or disregard a speaker or a discourse. As 'internal' power, it is the ability of an argument to eliminate other arguments by demonstrating its superiority. A positive or negative value may be ascribed to these forms of power. Four ideal-typical positions are discussed--strategy, technocracy, constructionism, and deliberation. Public deliberation has three virtues--civic virtue, governance virtue and cognitive virtue. Deliberation lowers the propensity to, and the benefit of, strategic behaviour. It also increases knowledge, enhancing the quality of decisions. For Habermas, the unity of reason is expressed in the possibility of agreement on the most convincing argument. However, sometimes conflicts are deep-lying, principles and factual descriptions are profoundly different, and uncertainty is radical. The best argument cannot be found. There is no universal reason. The question is whether non-strategic agreement may spring from the incommensurability of languages. In search of an answer, Rawls's concept of overlapping consensus, the feminist theory of the public sphere, and the idea of deliberation as co-operation are discussed. The argument developed is that the approach to deliberative democracy may be renewed by rethinking its motivational and cognitive elements. Public deliberation is grounded on a pre-political level of co-operation. Intractable controversies may be faced at the level of practices, looking for local, contextual answers.

231 citations