Doctrine

About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.

The Trinity and the Kingdom of God : the doctrine of God

Abstract: Moltmann considers the interrelation of Christian concepts and doctrines with the aim of overcoming schism both within the churches and with Judaism. Offers profound insight into the relationship between suffering and God.

The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties

Abstract: A distinction has become entrenched in United States law between treaties that are “self-executing” and those that are not. The precise nature of this distinction—indeed, its very existence—is a matter of some controversy’ and much confusion. More than one lower federal court has pronounced the distinction to be the “most confounding” in the United States law of treaties. A tremendous amount of scholarship has sought to clarify this distinction, but the honest observer cannot but agree with John Jackson’s observation that “[t]he substantial volume of scholarly writing on this issue has not yet resolved the confusion” surrounding it. The continuing, and remarkably candid, judicial confusion over this issue will, I hope, excuse yet another attempt to bring some coherence to the doctrine. In this article, I argue that much of the doctrinal disarray and judicial confusion is attributable to the failure of courts and commentators to recognize that for some time four distinct “doctrines” of self-executing treaties have been masquerading as one. With a view to furthering the development of doctrine in conformity with constitutional allocations of power, I identify these four “doctrines,” as reflected in the self-execution decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and I examine the very different types of analysis that they call for.

Reconceiving the family. The process of consent in medical decisionmaking

Abstract: Medical ethics has rediscovered the family. At least two factors have contributed to widening the focus from the individual. There has been a general revival of communitarian rhetoric in the United States that, of course, brings the role of social relations to the fore. Similarly, we should not underestimate the natural progression and development of medical ethics. Having focused on the rights of the patient for so long, it follows that ethicists now wish to map the relationships surrounding the individual that may affect medical decisionmaking. Because this interest in the family is a concern with the significant relationships that surround the patient, the family is described in terms of "closeness," not biology. This way of describing the family is commonplace in medical ethics and is a meritorious convention.[1] Thus, when John Hardwig asks, "What about the Family?"[2] he asks whether there is any role in medical decision-making for those close to the patient This is the question because our thinking about medical decisionmaking is entirely patient-centered. This patient-centered ethic is systematized as the doctrine of informed consent. Without much exaggeration it can be said that all of medical ethics is but a footnote to informed consent. It is the concept that first called medicine out of its paternalistic slumber and into the open light of public scrutiny. Informed consent serves as the foundation upon which answers to new questions and problems are constructed. Informed consent is a kind of doctrine, that is, an amalgam of legal and philosophical reasoning with a conceptual framework and a number of specific prescriptions. This framework entails a few basic actions and presupposes certain conditions. At the heart of the doctrine is the legal principle that "the right of a competent person to refuse medical treatment is virtually absolute."[3] The exercise of this right presupposes that the patient must receive all information relevant to the decision to undergo or forgo a proposed treatment and that he or she must comprehend the information. The legal principle indicates that the patient needs to be competent and it is also implicit that the choice is relatively freely made. Although influence is acceptable, all forms of coercion are beyond the pale.[4] The individualistic nature of this line of thought is clear. The person is conceptualized as possessing a sphere of protected activity or privacy free from unwanted interference. Within this zone of privacy, one is able to exercise his or her liberty and discretion. Within this protected sphere take place disclosure, comprehension, and choice, which express the patient's right of self-determination over her body.[5] Of course, these are legal formulations. The philosophical justification for them draws on egalitarian or democratic intuitions regarding personhood. The person is opaque to others and therefore the best judge and guardian of his or her own interests. Although the physician may be the expert on the medical "facts," the patient is the only individual with genuine insight into his private sphere of "values." Because treatment plans should reflect personal values as well as medical realities, the patient must be the ultimate decisionmaker.[6] Once we sketch the person in this way, the problem for ethicists is obvious. The doctrine of informed consent is based on an individual profile rather than a family portrait. The individual is outlined first, and only then do we ask where close others may be added to the picture. Because the philosophical and legal premises of the doctrine leave few other reasonable options, the family is usually conceived as comprising competing interests. Such a result is not adequate to our ordinary intuitions regarding the relationship of the patient to the family. Furthermore, these premises limit ethicists to arguing about the relative merits of these rival bundles of interests. Once we understand the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the inability of medical ethicists to adequately describe role of the family in medical decisionmaking, the tasks become clear. …

Military objectives in Soviet foreign policy

Abstract: This study concentrates on the military roots of Soviet policy. It concentrates on how planning for the contingency of a world war shapes and distorts Soviet policy while producing a military posture and structure of forces that appear to the West as being far in excess of any legitimate defense needs. The focus is on the military-technical aspects of doctrine, which is the responsibility of the military to implement. The study does not dwell on the decisions that the Soviet political leaders would face in the course of a war except to note how the hierarchy of objectives would influence those decisions.

Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine

Abstract: In this article it will be argued that good use of the instrument of deference might help the EU courts to deal with the situation of pluralism that is currently visible in the European legal order. By means of deferential judicial review, the EU courts can pay due respect to national constitutional traditions and to national legislative and policy choices, thus preventing situations of real conflict. In addition, deference enables the EU courts to take into account the intricacies related to judicial review of norms drafted by co‐equal institutions or by national elected bodies. Although the EU courts already make use of some form of deferential review, they may use the instrument in a clearer and more structured manner. As a basis for the development of a European ‘doctrine of deference’, a comparison will be made with the margin of appreciation doctrine devised by the European Court of Human Rights. Although this doctrine is certainly not fault‐free, it offers a number of advantages in terms of clarity and controllability. If improved and adapted on the basis of theoretical notions of procedural democracy, the doctrine might be put to good use by the EU courts.