Helping Buchanan on Helping the Rebels
05 Mar 2019-Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy (Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy)-Vol. 15, Iss: 1
TL;DR: In this article, Renzo argues that a proper understanding of political self-determination shows that it is often impermissible to intervene in order to establish a regime that leads to more selfdetermination for a group of people if that group was or would be opposed to the intervention.
Abstract: Massimo Renzo has recently argued in this journal that Allen Buchanan’s account of the ethics of intervention is too permissive. Renzo claims that a proper understanding of political self-determination shows that it is often impermissible to intervene in order to establish a regime that leads to more self-determination for a group of people if that group was or would be opposed to the intervention. Renzo’s argument rests on an analogy between individual self-determination and group self-determination, and once we see that there are differences between the two kinds of self-determination, his argument against Buchanan fails, and thus there are more cases of permissible intervention than Renzo countenances. However, understanding these differences also reveals that Buchanan’s account is also not permissive enough. There are cases of justified intervention beyond even what Buchanan compasses.
TL;DR: In this article, Cara Nine argues that Lea Ypi's account of the wrongness of colonialism has a hole in it: Ypi leaves open the possibility of justified sett...
Abstract: In ‘Colonialism, territory and pre-existing obligations,’ Cara Nine argues that Lea Ypi’s account of the wrongness of colonialism has a hole in it: Ypi leaves open the possibility of justified sett...
TL;DR: The cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession as mentioned in this paper argues that a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice, and it is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism.
Abstract: I defend the cosmopolitan instrumentalist theory of secession, according to which a group has a right to secede only if this would promote cosmopolitan justice. I argue that the theory is preferable to other theories of secession because it is an entailment of cosmopolitanism, which is independently attractive, and because, unlike other theories of secession, it allows us to give the answers we want to give in cases like secession of the rich or secession that would make things worse for minorities. I defend the view against the objections that it allows for colonialism and annexation, that it is not a distinct theory, and that it is impractical.
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
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
01 Jan 2004
Related Papers (5)
01 Jan 2007