Pluralism and LawA. Soeteman Springer Science & Business Media, 17. apr. 2013 - 388 strani AREND SOETEMAN In the past we lived on one earth, but in many different worlds. Different civilisations, in regions far apart, knew about one another (at least from about the 16th century), they competed with one another or tried to dominate the other, they influenced one another, but in many important aspects they were independent from one another. Somewhere in the 20th century, however, this changed. There is no far apart anymore. We have lived through two European wars, which developed into world wars. Modem aeroplanes allow us to travel in only a couple of hours around the world. Instant communication between individuals who have the whole globe in between is a reality. There still exist great differences between different civilisations. But they can ignore one another only at their peril. They deeply influence one another. Today, therefore, we live in one world. Conflicts in the Middle East, in Rwanda and Uganda or in the former Yugoslavia have their impact all over the world. Violations of human rights, no matter where, are increasingly considered to be the concern of all of us. The whims and caprices of some dictator may influence the spending possibilities of the general public far away. |
Vsebina
Humanitarian Intervention and the SelfImage of | |
ITS STATUS IN | |
ITS MORAL STATUS | |
OPINIO JURIS | |
LAWANDTHE MODERN CORPORATION 3 GLOBALIZATION AND THE CONCEPT OF A NEW SOCIAL | |
REFERENCES | |
INTRODUCTION | |
AREASOF INTEREST AND DISAGREEMENT IN THE DEBATE | |
REFERENCES | |
Chapter 2Retribution in the Transition to Democracy 1 INTRODUCTION | |
THE RETRIBUTIVE EMOTIONS | |
DESERT | |
DETERRENCE | |
REHABILITATION | |
INCAPACITATION | |
Chapter3Hate | |
GLOBALIZATION AND THE PHENOMENON OF SELF | |
REFERENCES | |
HUMAN RIGHTS AND JUSTICE | |
STRATEGIC CHOICES | |
UN NOUVEL AGE DU DROIT? | |
REFERENCES | |
LEGITIMACY AND STABILITY | |
DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICTS | |
THELIMITSOF TOLERANCE | |
SOME QUESTIONS AND DOUBTS AS CONCLUSIONS | |
POLITICAL | |
Plurality of Cultures and Natural | |
REFERENCES | |
CONCLUSION | |
Chapter14Legal Reasoning and Systematization of | |
THE REDUCTIVE CONCEPTION AND THE ABSTRACT | |
REFERENCES | |
THE BINDING POWER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS | |
REFERENCES | |
NONPROPOSITIONAL ANALOGY IN RELIGIOUS LEGAL | |
RELIGIOUS V SECULAR CONTEXTS | |
Why is Legal Reasoning Defeasible? | |
DEFEASABILITY INDETERMINACY AND LEGAL | |
CONCLUSION | |
REFERENCES | |
Druge izdaje - Prikaži vse
Pogosti izrazi in povedi
andthe argued argument authority bythe Cambridge Canadian canbe Charter citizens civil claim conception ofthe conflict consequentialist constitutional contemporary corporations courts cultural d’une dansle decision defeasible dela deliberative Deliberative Democracy democracy democratic démocratie discourse doctrinal pluralism doesnot droit Dworkin economic equality ethics example expression formof freedom fromthe groups hate speech Hobbesian human rights law Humanitarian Intervention identity important individual institutional interests interpretation intervention inthe inthis isan isnot isthat isthe itis Jon Elster Joseph Raz justified Keegstra Kymlicka l’Etat legal norms legal positivism legal reasoning legislation legitimacy liberal liberal democracy limits logic modern moral n’est obligation ofhuman ofthe ofthese onthe opinio juris Oxford participation particular philosophical political politique pouvoir principles protection punishment qu’il question Rawls relevant requires rule shouldbe social society souveraineté thatis thatone thatthe thelaw theory thereis thesame Thomas Nagel tobe tolerance tothe U.S. Supreme Court University Press values withthe