The Editors's Latest Posts
Humanitarian action is regularly accused of prolonging wars or colluding with vicious regimes. But the profession has been strangely tardy in developing its operational ethics.
Daniel Levine’s goal is to “recover” IR’s original vocation, or calling, and to reinvigorate it via the idea of “sustainable critique”—a project inspired by the work of Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School.
This article examines the nature of the wrongs that are inflicted on individuals and groups who have been expelled from the land that they previously occupied, and asks what they might consequently be owed as a matter of corrective justice. I argue that there are three sorts of potential wrongs involved in such expulsions: being deprived of the moral right of occupancy; being denied collective self-determination; and having one’s property rights violated.
Insofar as ethical debates have begun to touch on how the assets of sovereign wealth funds should be distributed, they have tended to ask how these should be distributed internally, to citizens of the countries in question. Sovereign wealth funds are the creation of sovereigns, after all, and we might think that the first duty of a sovereign is to its people. What, though, of the claims of global justice?
Because these two influential streams of thought are in such tension with each other, our thinking about rebellion in the West tends to be piecemeal, driven more by gut reactions than by philosophical reasoning and careful political analysis. As a result, our responses to rebellion are scattered, unpredictable, and unfortunately often tragically misplaced.
Christian just war reasoning is conservative in its recognition that peaceful order is basic to all other forms of human flourishing, and so should not be disturbed needlessly. Nevertheless, it is morally critical in its awareness that sometimes peaceful order can be tyrannical or repressive to an extent that should not be borne.