Este trabalho procura investigar a revitalização da teoria da guerra justa nas suas formas tradicional e na Filosofia Política Contemporânea. Assim como a sua influência, dentro de um fenômeno amplo de moralização do Direito Internacional Público, acerca dos casos polêmicos sobre o uso da força armada, em especial as intervenções humanitárias e a legítima defesa antecipatória. Analisa a recepção destas idéias na doutrina do Direito Internacional, da Filosofia do Direito Internacional e nas Comissões Internacionais que trataram do uso da força armada nos últimos anos. / This work wants to investigate the revitalization of the theory of just war in its traditional way and in Contemporary Political Philosophy. As such as its influence, inside the matter of moralization of International Law, on the polemical cases about the use of armed force, especially humanitarian interventions and anticipatory self-defense. Analyses the reception of these ideas on the doctrine of International Law, Philosophy of International Law, and International Commissions which dealt with the use of armed force in the last years.

Chang Kwun-Hung. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 184-189). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Chapter 1. --- Introduction / Chapter 1.1 --- The approach of this thesis --- p.3 / Chapter 1.2 --- Criticisms on Rawls --- p.8 / Chapter 1.3 --- Influences from Marx --- p.13 / Chapter 1.4 --- "Socialism, market, and democracy" --- p.14 / Chapter 1.5 --- Why should we need equality? --- p.18 / Chapter 2. --- Complex Equality and Distributive Justice / Chapter 2.1 --- Social goods and distributive spheres --- p.22 / Chapter 2.2 --- Problems on simple equality --- p.26 / Chapter 2.3 --- Complex equality and reduction of dominance --- p.33 / Chapter 2.4 --- Blocked exchange and free exchanges --- p.37 / Chapter 2.5 --- Natural endowments and desert --- p.40 / Chapter 3. --- Criticisms on Walzer's theory of social goods / Chapter 3.1 --- Loose link between social meanings and distributive principles --- p.47 / Chapter 3.2 --- Moral considerations and principle of utility --- p.50 / Chapter 3.3 --- Basic needs and communal provision --- p.56 / Chapter 3.4 --- Unclear boundaries between social goods --- p.60 / Chapter 4. --- Citizenship and shared understandings of social goods / Chapter 4.1 --- Democratic citizenship and political power --- p.70 / Chapter 4.2 --- Decentralized democratic socialism --- p.77 / Chapter 4.3 --- Ruled by citizens or ruled by specialists? --- p.79 / Chapter 4.4 --- Shared understandings of social welfare --- p.81 / Chapter 4.41 --- Medical care / Chapter 4.42 --- Education / Chapter 4.5 --- Art of separation --- p.91 / Chapter 5. --- Interpretation and social criticism / Chapter 5.1 --- Interpretation thesis --- p.99 / Chapter 5.2 --- Social criticism --- p.111 / Chapter 5.3 --- Dworkin-Walzer debate --- p.118 / Chapter 6. --- Problems with Walzer's interpretation thesis / Chapter 6.1 --- The possibility of social criticisms made by another society --- p.132 / Chapter 6.2 --- Refutation of interpretation thesis --- p.139 / Chapter 6.21 --- Georgia Warnke's criticism / Chapter 6.22 --- Joshua Cohen's criticism / Chapter 6.23 --- Raw materials taking part in Walzer's interpretation / Chapter 6.24 --- Joseph Raz's criticism / Chapter 6.25 --- Social practices and underlying ideas / Chapter 6.3 --- Universal application of Walzer's particularism --- p.157 / Chapter 6.4 --- Thick and thin --- p.162 / Chapter 6.5 --- Improving Walzer's theory --- p.171 / CONCLUSION --- p.179 / BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.184

The permissible use of defensive force is a central tenet of the traditional legal and philosophical justification for war and its practice. Just War Theory holds a nation’s right to resist aggressive attack with defensive force as the clearest example of a just cause for war. Just War Theory also stipulates norms for warfare derived from a conception of defensive force asserted to be consistent with the moral reality of war. Recently, these aspects of Just War Theory have been criticized. David Rodin has challenged the status of national defense as an uncontroversial just cause. Jeff McMahan has charged that Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare are inconsistent with the norms of permissive defensive force. In this thesis I defend the status of national defense as a clear case of a just cause. However, my defense may require revision of Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare.

This paper revisits one of the more frequented stops at the crossroads of politics and morality in contemporary ethical theory, Michael Walzer’s essay “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.” The aim is to provide a fresh assessment of Walzer’s project, and to evaluate the tenability of its core notion of “dirty hands.” In pursuit of this aim, the effort is made to reopen the paths which take Walzer to his celebrated impasse, from two directions. The first of these resituates Walzer’s analysis in the context of the debate within Anglo-American ethical theory in which it is originally expounded. The second route seeks to recapture the trail of thinkers who guide Walzer to his conclusions from more remote locations in intellectual history, in order to determine the reliability of his intriguing constellation of Machiavelli, Weber and Camus as lodestars. Writing thirty years later, one of Walzer’s friendliest interpreters, Jean Elshtain, in the midst of her enthusiasm for ‘dirty hands,’ renews doubts about his recommendation of “casuistry.” Hints from throughout Walzer’s essay, incompletely elaborated there, are parceled together into closing suggestions as to an alternative approach to so-called ‘dirty hands’ situations. / text

Ce mémoire traite de la critique communautarienne du libéralisme et se donne deux projets. D’abord, il s’agit de formuler une position de synthèse à partir des travaux des philosophes Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre et Michael Walzer. Cette synthèse s’articule autour de trois axes, soit ontologique, sociale et méthodologique. Le deuxième projet est d’évaluer cette position pour statuer sur son rapport au libéralisme, et, plus précisément, pour déterminer si elle est seulement une critique, une alternative, ou encore une variante à l’intérieur du libéralisme. Il est conclu que le communautarisme est réconciliable avec une certaine forme de libéralisme et que sa critique permet même de l’améliorer. / In this essay about the communitarian critique of liberalism I seek to reach two goals. First, it is to form a synthesis from the works of philosophers Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre and Michael Walzer. This synthesis is articulated through three axes: ontologicial, social and methodological. Building on this, my second objective is to assess its relation to liberalism. More specifically, I seek to determine whether communitarianism is merely a critique, an alternative or a variant of liberalism. My conclusion is that communitarianism is reconciliable with a certain form of liberalism and that its critique allows to improve it.

Este trabalho procura investigar a revitalização da teoria da guerra justa nas suas formas tradicional e na Filosofia Política Contemporânea. Assim como a sua influência, dentro de um fenômeno amplo de moralização do Direito Internacional Público, acerca dos casos polêmicos sobre o uso da força armada, em especial as intervenções humanitárias e a legítima defesa antecipatória. Analisa a recepção destas idéias na doutrina do Direito Internacional, da Filosofia do Direito Internacional e nas Comissões Internacionais que trataram do uso da força armada nos últimos anos. / This work wants to investigate the revitalization of the theory of just war in its traditional way and in Contemporary Political Philosophy. As such as its influence, inside the matter of moralization of International Law, on the polemical cases about the use of armed force, especially humanitarian interventions and anticipatory self-defense. Analyses the reception of these ideas on the doctrine of International Law, Philosophy of International Law, and International Commissions which dealt with the use of armed force in the last years.

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / Autor no autoriza el acceso a texto completo de su documento / La presente memoria se compone de dos grandes capítulos y una reflexión final. El primer capítulo consiste en un análisis general de una obra esencial para la filosofía política contemporánea como lo es “Las Esferas de la Justicia” (1983) del profesor estadounidense Michael Walzer. Se comienza contextualizando dicha obra en base a tres corrientes de pensamiento: el liberalismo, el neoliberalismo, y el comunitarismo. Luego, se exhibe llanamente la concepción del autor acerca de ideales como la justicia, el pluralismo y la igualdad. Especialmente, se estudia la esfera de la justicia referida a la educación, concebida por Walzer como un bien social autónomo y cuyos muros deben impedir la injerencia de factores externos, tales como el dinero o el poder. ¿Cómo se plantea la tiranía en la esfera de la educación? ¿Cuál es el papel de la escuela en una sociedad democrática? Interrogantes de este tipo son las que se pretende responder basándonos en el libro ya referido. El segundo capítulo apunta a examinar los criterios ideológicos neoliberales fundantes – especialmente debidos a Friedman- del actual sistema educacional chileno, implantados por la dictadura militar de Pinochet. La reflexión final intentará relacionar ambos capítulos afirmando la tesis que en Chile la “Esfera de la Educación” en todos sus tramos – básica, media y superior- se rige eminentemente bajo cánones mercantiles, creando serias desigualdades sociales, notoria segregación e individuos profundamente carentes de formación ciudadana; todos elementos ajenos a una democracia. Se concluye que el sistema educativo actual opera como un simple reproductor del sistema de clases sociales, tanto teórica, como empíricamente. Urge entonces adherirse como sociedad a una concepción de la educación como un bien social autónomo, inclusive más allá de la concepción liberal de derecho humano social

No description available.

This dissertation establishes a category of early Soviet “exodic” literature, which consists of works published in Yiddish or Russian between 1917 and 1935. Reading together texts by Peretz Markish, Andrei Platonov, Moyshe Kulbak, Ilya Ilf and Evgeny Petrov, Yiddish texts are placed on equal footing with Russian texts to underscore the singular role of Jews in the early Soviet period and demonstrate shared anxieties and practices of resistance to hegemony among groups seemingly separated by language and culture. These anxieties and modes of resistance are what make the Soviet exodic a literature of revolution as it grapples with the complexity of the Soviet period and Soviet identity formation. Drawing upon political theorist Michael Walzer and his text Exodus and Revolution as well as the critical response from Edward Said, this dissertation uses the biblical book of Exodus as a theoretical matrix for the identification and elaboration of narrative sequences and thematic material that constitute a revolutionary genre and applies it to the study of early Soviet literature. Because they are written and published between 1917 and 1935, exodic texts are positioned between the Bolshevik Revolution and the crystallization of high Stalinism. Therefore, they are situated within what is commonly known as the “interwar period.” Such a definition relies upon absence (the absence of war). The Soviet exodic provides this historical moment and its attending texts a positive definition in deference to the revolutionary framework that guides it. This dissertation also considers how the texts enact revolution with the help of critical and queer theory, most notably Sara Ahmed’s Queer Phenomenology and Mary Rubenstein’s Pantheologies. These theoretical supports serve to articulate the various queer—that is, non-normative—ways that the selected texts engage pluralism to resist ideological regimes and forces of control as they re-evaluate social and political categories and norms. Queer theory also serves to express the entanglement of self, other, and place, and in so doing, brings ecological anxieties to the fore. Resistance in the Soviet exodic thus takes shape through the queering or misalignment of categories like space, language, or gender performance, and culminates in the figure of the Soviet trickster, who, by means of their unfinalizability, is the embodiment of revolution.

In here, the criminalization of sexual violence is a manifestation of increased recognition of feminism, and proof of international law reaching at liberal criteria for legitimization. Though, in making conclusions other necessary criteria for fully recognized legitimacy are acknowledged (such as other types of rights, types of security and other levels for analysis). Though, from a strict feminist critical approach the criminalization of sexual violence, and the extent of such criminalization can by itself prove legitimacy or illegitimacy.The criminalizing of sexual violence took place over 100 years ago, yet the systematic use of it in warfare was not publicly condemned until the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda) and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal of former Yugoslavia) (Buss, 2009, p. 356) took on the duty to prosecute and convict. Still today women’s security and sexual violence are research fields that awake a lot of hostile emotions.Findings show that there is few, if any, affects for those tribunals that fail to bring justice to rape victims; calling for an analysis of Walzer’s political fit. The international praxis of impunity supports feminism in an existing ‘male truth’ risking the security of women. The legitimacy of the institution of international law is, however, not dependent on one legal procedure.Liberalist and feminist different interpretations of adequate necessity to create peace frame after 15 224 words a utilitarian illusion which slows down the pace of the implementation of a feminist security agenda. However, the progress is still evidence of strife towards the Kantian society of states. An inconsistent moral consensus finally results in the conclusion that this thesis cannot confirm the institution of international law illegitimate, arguably validating legitimacy.