This literary analysis focuses on the correlation between foreign aid and corruption. The “Capabilities Approach” by Amartya Sen is used to discuss how to, and who is responsible for, developing an ethically justified aid policy. Arguments and ideas from five different sources have been analyzed. The primary sources are African Development by Todd Moss, Corruption and Development by Georg Cremer, Lord of Poverty by Graham Hancock, The White Man’s Burden by William Easterly, and Internationalisation of corruption by Daniela Herrmann and Clare Fletcher. This study analyzes three questions. Firstly, does foreign aid affect the level of corruption, and how? Secondly, how do you measure development and justice? Thirdly, who is considered accountable? The results show that there is a connection between aid and corruption and that the aid agencies together with the governments have the primary responsibility to improve the policy and reconstruct the organizations. The policy should focus on enhancing the quality of life of the individual.

published_or_final_version / Law / Master / Master of Laws

No description available.

No description available.

I argue that one has a right when another has a normative constraint with respect to one. The fact that claims and immunities are the only Hohfeldian elements which constrain another combined with the fact that rights necessarily constrain others gives us reason to think that to have a right is to have either a claim OR an immunity. Hohfeldian elements can be defined in terms of fundamental normative concepts such as obligation and impossibility. This analysis provides a plausible account of liberty and power rights. The analysis also resolves the puzzles surrounding mandatory or obligation rights and rights which do not benefit the rightholder. To have a normative constraint with respect to another is to have an obligation or impossibility grounded in a feature of the rightholder. The analysis of rights provides good, but not conclusive, reason to think that there are moral rights. Further, the analysis reveals that the specificity view of rights conflict is true.

This item was digitized as part of the Million Books Project led by Carnegie Mellon University and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cornell University coordinated the participation of land-grant and agricultural libraries in providing historical agricultural information for the digitization project; the University of Arizona Libraries, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the Office of Arid Lands Studies collaborated in the selection and provision of material for the digitization project.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.