The International Court of Justice (ICJ) met recently to begin hearing its most prominent case in years. It pits two heavyweights, Australia and Japan, against each other.
To stay viable as a political ideology, liberalism needs to show that it can remain true to its universal norms while being responsive to cultural complexities and differences.
Today’s optimists stress the degree to which globalization appears much more firmly institutionalized than it was a hundred years ago, the rather striking success of global economic governance in responding to the financial crisis of 2007–2008, and the longer-term trend within international society to move away from major-power war. Pessimists are less sure.
“Global Civics” is an attempt to ignite a dialogue about responsibilities and rights in an increasingly interdependent world, and should be of interest to anyone who finds the ethical dimension in globalization neglected.
What sorts of harms arising from changes in the Arctic are actionable, and who should take the actions required to respond to them?
This article sets out a conceptual framework for normative theorizing about fairness in international negotiations, with a particular emphasis on the role of feasibility considerations. We argue that a fair and feasible agreement will require reforming the current dichotomy between developed and developing countries’ commitments, coupled with a more principled approach to differentiating the level of national mitigation efforts.
This article argues that most well-known approaches to climate justice have two important weaknesses, in that they fail to take advantage of two crucial developments: one, the identification of social and political misrecognition as the key underlying condition of the maldistribution of goods and risks; and two, the influential capabilities approach, which focuses on the specific range of basic needs and capabilities that human beings require to function.