Charles R. Beitz
Other affiliations: Bowdoin College
Bio: Charles R. Beitz is an academic researcher from Princeton University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Politics & Human rights. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 36 publications receiving 3600 citations. Previous affiliations of Charles R. Beitz include Bowdoin College.
01 Jan 1979
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the Hobbesian situation of the Realists and the basis of international social justice, and the relation between social cooperation, boundary, and basis of justice.
Abstract: Preface vii Introduction 3 Part One. International Relations as a State of Nature 11 1. The Skepticism of the Realists 15 2. The Hobbesian Situation 27 3. International Relations as a State of Nature 35 4. The Basis of International Morality 50 5. From International Skepticism to the Morality of States 63 Part Two. The Autonomy of States 67 1 . State Autonomy and Individual Liberty 71 2. Nonintervention, Paternalism, and Neutrality 83 3. Self-determination 92 4. Eligibility, Boundaries, and Nationality 105 5. Economic Dependence 116 6. State Autonomy and Domestic Social justice 121 Part Three. International Distributive justice 125 1. Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of justice 129 2. Entitlements to Natural Resources 136 3. Interdependence and Global Distributive justice 143 4. Contrasts between International and Domestic Society 154 5. The Rights of States 161 6. Applications to the Nonideal World 169 Conclusion 177 Afterword 185 Works Cited 221 Index 237
06 Aug 2009
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a fresh start for the practice of naturalistic theories and agreement theories in the context of international concern. But they do not discuss the relationship between naturalistic theory and agreement theory.
Abstract: Preface I. Introduction II. The Practice III. Naturalistic Theories IV. Agreement Theories V. A Fresh Start VI. Normativity VII. International Concern VIII. Conclusion Works cited Index
TL;DR: The Law of Peoples as mentioned in this paper is the most comprehensive and systematic statement of John Rawls's international thought, which is consistent with the most revolutionary developments in international law in the twentieth century and the subordination of national sovereignty to international standards of political legitimacy embodied in the doctrine of human rights.
Abstract: The Law of Peoples is John Rawls’s most comprehensive and systematic statement of his international thought.1 It is a remarkable and unusual essay. The normative scope is surprisingly broad for a work of this length, embracing subjects from the morality of war to the international distribution of resources to the ethics of statesmanship. The theory aims to be continuous with the political theory of a liberal, democratic political culture— indeed, to illustrate that such a theory is incomplete without an articulate understanding of the society’s international responsibilities. Rawls’s view is consistent with the most revolutionary developments in international law in the twentieth century—the limitation of war to purposes of self-defense and the subordination of national sovereignty to international standards of political legitimacy embodied in the doctrine of human rights, of which he provides an original and provocative interpretation. The view is situated in the intellectual context of modern Anglo-American international thought, aspiring to occupy the middle ground between the skepticism of the so-called realists and a politically inert utopianism. The tone is more personal, and Rawls’s conception of our historical situation is made more explicit, than in his earlier works. Together with his paper, ‘‘The Idea of Public Reason Revisited’’ (republished in the same volume),2 The Law of Peoples represents, as he writes, ‘‘the culmination of my reflections on how reasonable citizens and peoples might live together peacefully in a just world’’ (p. vi). For all of these reasons, this essay ranks among Rawls’s most important works in
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue against the broad view of human rights and in favor of the view implicit in contemporary international practice, using the right to democratic institutions as an example, and argue that genuine human rights, if they are to be regarded as a truly common concern of world society, must be construed more narrowly.
Abstract: The doctrine of human rights has come to play a distinctive role in international life. This is primarily the role of a moral touchstone-a standard of assessment and criticism for domestic institutions, a standard of aspiration for their reform, and increasingly a standard of evaluation for the policies and practices of international economic and political institutions. International practice has followed the controlling documents of international law in taking a broad view of the scope of human rights. Many political theorists argue, however, that this view is excessively broad and that genuine human rights, if they are to be regarded as a truly common concern of world society, must be construed more narrowly. I argue against that perspective and in favor of the view implicit in contemporary international practice, using the right to democratic institutions as an example.
TL;DR: It is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction.
Abstract: All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.
•01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: The authors presented a model of social change that predicts how the value systems play a crucial role in the emergence and flourishing of democratic institutions, and that modernisation brings coherent cultural changes that are conducive to democratisation.
Abstract: This book demonstrates that people's basic values and beliefs are changing, in ways that affect their political, sexual, economic, and religious behaviour. These changes are roughly predictable: to a large extent, they can be interpreted on the basis of a revised version of modernisation theory presented here. Drawing on a massive body of evidence from societies containing 85 percent of the world's population, the authors demonstrate that modernisation is a process of human development, in which economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and democracy increasingly likely. The authors present a model of social change that predicts how the value systems play a crucial role in the emergence and flourishing of democratic institutions - and that modernisation brings coherent cultural changes that are conducive to democratisation.
••25 Nov 2004
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reread Kant's cosmopolitan doctrine and the right to have rights and the contradictions of the nation-state in the case of the European Union, and the law of peoples, distributive justice and migrations.
Abstract: Introduction 1. On hospitality: rereading Kant's cosmopolitan doctrine 2. 'The right to have rights': Hannah Arendt and the contradictions of the nation-state 3. The law of peoples, distributive justice and migrations 4. Transformations of citizenship: the case of the European Union 5. Democratic iterations: the local, the national and the global Conclusion References Index.
TL;DR: The need for workable ideas about the global or international case presents political theory with its most important current task, and even perhaps with the opportunity to make a practical contribution in the long run, though perhaps only the very long run as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: By comparison with the perplexing and undeveloped state of this subject, domestic political theory is very well understood, with multiple highly developed theories offering alternative solutions to well-defined problems By contrast, concepts and theories of global justice are in the early stages of formation, and it is not clear what the main questions are, let alone the main possible answers I believe that the need for workable ideas about the global or international case presents political theory with its most important current task, and even perhaps with the opportunity to make a practical contribution in the long run, though perhaps only the very long run The theoretical and normative questions I want to discuss are closely related to pressing practical questions that we now face about the legitimate path forward in the governance of the world These are, inevitably, questions about institutions, many of which do not yet exist However imperfectly, the nation-state is the primary locus of political legitimacy and the pursuit of justice, and it is one of the advantages of domestic political theory that nation-states actually exist But when we are