Development and Fundamentalism

"It is often thought that there is some kind of conflict between development and fundamentalism. Fundamentalists may be opposed to what they see as development – particularly commitment to economic growth and the materialism associated with it, to liberty and to democracy which are central to a common paradigm of development. Advocates of development may regard fundamentalists as impeding development in practice and rejecting it in principle. [...]" (Part of the Introduction, p.17)

Does global citizenship require modern technology?

A double answer is given to the question: 'does global citizenship require modern technology?' First, it does not because the idea of global citizenship as membership of a universal moral commnunity goes back to the ancient Stoics. Second, it does, because the adequate expression of globalresponsibility in the modern world requires the development of global culture and global institutions for which modern technologies of communication and transportation are crucial: modern technology furthemore gives us both knowledge of the world and the capacity to act at a distance. The discussion provides a peg on which to defend the idea of global citizenship in both its ethical and its institutional aspects against the criticisms made of it for instance from relativist or communitarian perspectives

Global ethics in theory and in practice : the case of the responsibility to protect (R2P)

Conference paperEnginn útdráttu

The etics and war and peace

x+220hlm.;23c

the ethics of war and peace : cosmopolitan and other perspectives

x+220hlm.;21c

Intersectional global citizenship: gendered and racialized renderings

This article intervenes in the emerging field of global citizenship studies by following in the footsteps of critical studies of national citizenship, which have shown that the seemingly neutral features of citizenship are gendered and racialized. The notion of “global citizenship” has gained currency in recent years and while there is not yet a canonized account of global citizenship, it is possible to identify the main shared features of different global citizenship accounts. While the “global” of global citizenship could denote the universality of the concept in contrast to national citizenship, this promise of inclusivity is not fulfilled. This article provides an intersectional reading of global citizenship theories and examples. Dominant global citizenship accounts, I argue, contain exclusionary and marginalizing tendencies and are biased toward a certain type of global subject whose responsibility is based on benevolence. A more inclusive and radical account of global citizenship can be built by drawing on Iris Marion Young’s social connection model to rethink responsibility and by more firmly grounding it in an understanding of globalization as linked to historical and present structural inequalities