Sharia and Egypt’s constitution: an Iraqi blueprint

The constitutional debates that took place in the run-up to the formation of the current Iraqi constitution provide a blueprint for the questions Islamic parties must address if they are to be insiders to the process of consolidating democracy

Is Investor-State Arbitration Unfair? A Freedom-Based Perspective

Investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes between foreign investors and host-states. Seemingly a technical issue in private international law, ISDS procedures have recently become a matter of public concern and the target of political resistance, due to the power they grant to foreign investors in matters of public policies in the countries they invest in. This article examines the practice of ISDS through the lenses of liberal-statist theories of international justice, which value self-determination. It argues that the investor-state arbitration system illustrates how liberal-statist theories of international distributive justice ought to care about relative socioeconomic disadvantage, contra the sufficiency principle that they typically defend. The sufficiency principle draws on a questionable conception of the freedom that self-determination consists in

Is Investor-State Arbitration Unfair? A Freedom-Based Perspective

Investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes between foreign investors and host-states. Seemingly a technical issue in private international law, ISDS procedures have recently become a matter of public concern and the target of political resistance, due to the power they grant to foreign investors in matters of public policies in the countries they invest in. This article examines the practice of ISDS through the lenses of liberal-statist theories of international justice, which value self-determination. It argues that the investor-state arbitration system illustrates how liberal-statist theories of international distributive justice ought to care about relative socioeconomic disadvantage, contra the sufficiency principle that they typically defend. The sufficiency principle draws on a questionable conception of the freedom that self-determination consists in

Self-Determination and the Limits on the Right to Include

States’ right to exclude prospective members is the subject of a fierce debate in political theory, but the right to include has received relatively little scholarly attention. To address this lacuna, we examine the puzzle of permissible inclusion: when may states confer citizenship on individuals they have no prior obligation to include? We first clarify why permissible inclusion is a puzzle, then proceed to a normative evaluation of this practice and its limits. We investigate self-determination – a dominant principle in theories of the right to exclude – as a normative ground for limits on the right to include. We argue that states’ duties to respect one another’s self-determination yield limits on permissible inclusion. When inclusive policies for citizenship undermine the permissible scope of self-determination of other states, they are impermissible; they should either be prohibited, or require compensation

Migration and Global Justice

"Editors Introduction" zum "Special Issue on Global Justice and Migration

The liberal difference : left and right conceptions of global injustice

In left critiques of globalization, it is often argued that liberal-egalitarian principles are inadequate for thinking about and struggling for global justice; that they are, in fact, part of the problem. For the case of identity politics as a left alternative, the paper points at two fallacies in this notion, regarding two ‘liberal’ elements: individualism and universalism. The paper examines groupidentity claims in far right conceptions of global injustice, and shows that cultural diversity of groups does not necessitate or even favour equality and democratic participation. It then examines the left group-based claims in the global justice discourse, showing that the aspirations for equality and freedom assume the liberal notions that have been often rejected as inadequate. The paper concludes that this ambivalent position undermines the democratic and egalitarian aspirations of left critiques of the global order. The analysis is based on manifestos and publications of political parties and movements in Western Europe (France, Germany and Austria)

Drawing boundaries : nations, states and self-determination

The claims of cultures and nationalities have presented liberal, democratic and republican theory with a persistent problem: on the one hand, the principle of peoples' self-determination requires a realm of autonomy to cultural and national groups to govern themselves in their own ways; one the other hand, the national and cultural models of the political community come into sharp tensions with the universal principles of individual rights and legal and democratic equality. The thesis addresses one aspect of this problem and explores the role of cultural and national claims in the definition and conception of the political community and in drawing its boundaries. I provide a critical discussion of the prominent approaches to this question in contemporary theories of liberal nationalism and liberal multiculturalism, and argue that the cultural notions of the political community which they espouse are inadequate. Drawing on earlier approaches to the claims of nationalities in liberal, republican and democratic political thought - as they emerge in Europe during the 1848-9 revolutions and in the peace treaties at the end of WWI - I retrieve and develop an alternative conception of the political community and its boundaries, which I call 'the political approach'. This approach, I argue, is better equipped to accommodate in theory the legitimate claims of cultures and nationalities, without falling into the traps of cultural essentialism, homogeneity and exclusion. At the same time, different from civic and cosmopolitan views, the political conception does not ignore or deny the public role and place of cultural and national identities.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

International injustice : past and present

Review: Daniel Butt, ‘Rectifying International Injustice: Principles of Compensation and Restitution Between Nations, Oxford University Press, 2009

Drawing boundaries : nations, states and self-determination

The claims of cultures and nationalities have presented liberal, democratic and republican theory with a persistent problem: on the one hand, the principle of peoples' self-determination requires a realm of autonomy to cultural and national groups to govern themselves in their own ways; one the other hand, the national and cultural models of the political community come into sharp tensions with the universal principles of individual rights and legal and democratic equality. The thesis addresses one aspect of this problem and explores the role of cultural and national claims in the definition and conception of the political community and in drawing its boundaries. I provide a critical discussion of the prominent approaches to this question in contemporary theories of liberal nationalism and liberal multiculturalism, and argue that the cultural notions of the political community which they espouse are inadequate. Drawing on earlier approaches to the claims of nationalities in liberal, republican and democratic political thought - as they emerge in Europe during the 1848-9 revolutions and in the peace treaties at the end of WWI - I retrieve and develop an alternative conception of the political community and its boundaries, which I call 'the political approach'. This approach, I argue, is better equipped to accommodate in theory the legitimate claims of cultures and nationalities, without falling into the traps of cultural essentialism, homogeneity and exclusion. At the same time, different from civic and cosmopolitan views, the political conception does not ignore or deny the public role and place of cultural and national identities.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Freedom beyond the threshold: self-determination, sovereignty, and global justice

In current debates about global justice, statist and nationalist theories appeal to the right to self-determination in argument against egalitarianism beyond borders, and in general as a reason for caution about substantive international duties of justice, lest the exercise of self-determination would be too tightly constrained. Has self-determination—an important heritage of decolonization—no longer a role to play in the argument against international inequality and disempowerment? In this article, I examine a dominant interpretation of self-determination in the global justice debate, as defended prominently by John Rawls and David Miller and find it wanting. Specifically, two challenges are raised: at the conceptual level this interpretation leaves unclarified the distinction and relationship between sovereignty and self-determination; at the normative level, this interpretation adopts a sufficiency view of international distributive justice that neglects that problem of relative extents and measures of self-determination, beyond the threshold. While the article's argument is mainly of a critical scope, it is suggested that a more robust theoretical account is required of the content of the right of self-determination, and in particular of the freedoms that the right confers to the right-holders in the socioeconomic domains and their extents