Pub Date : 2023-10-30DOI: 10.1177/17550882231208076
Dan Bulley
Immigration ethics debates remain deeply Eurocentric in their assumptions and focus. Due to the dominance of a universalising, liberal perspective, the thought and experience of the global south continues to be excluded, except as ‘senders’ or ‘transiters’ of people. Not only does the debate thereby misrepresent the majority of the world, it also necessarily excludes that majority from having anything useful to say about ethical approaches to immigration. In this way, it offers a partial, parochial, local theory that mischaracterises itself as international and universal. By making common cause with decolonising approaches from Latin America, this article seeks to challenge this Eurocentrism by drawing on an example of African immigration ethics: postcolonial Tanzania’s ‘open door’ era. Here, the combination of the OAU’s expanded definition of a refugee, alongside the ‘traditional’ indigenous values of Julius Nyerere’s pan-Africanism and native socialism ( ujamaa), made for a generous, if highly restricted welcome for hundreds of thousands of people. This reveals the need for immigration ethics to dispense with the search for ‘universal’ norms that are limiting and exclusionary. Instead, it should explore pluriversality: the importance of local, creative, relational responses to mobile populations that are ongoing in the global south.
{"title":"Beyond the Eurocentrism of immigration ethics: Tanzania and pan-African <i>Ujamaa</i>","authors":"Dan Bulley","doi":"10.1177/17550882231208076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231208076","url":null,"abstract":"Immigration ethics debates remain deeply Eurocentric in their assumptions and focus. Due to the dominance of a universalising, liberal perspective, the thought and experience of the global south continues to be excluded, except as ‘senders’ or ‘transiters’ of people. Not only does the debate thereby misrepresent the majority of the world, it also necessarily excludes that majority from having anything useful to say about ethical approaches to immigration. In this way, it offers a partial, parochial, local theory that mischaracterises itself as international and universal. By making common cause with decolonising approaches from Latin America, this article seeks to challenge this Eurocentrism by drawing on an example of African immigration ethics: postcolonial Tanzania’s ‘open door’ era. Here, the combination of the OAU’s expanded definition of a refugee, alongside the ‘traditional’ indigenous values of Julius Nyerere’s pan-Africanism and native socialism ( ujamaa), made for a generous, if highly restricted welcome for hundreds of thousands of people. This reveals the need for immigration ethics to dispense with the search for ‘universal’ norms that are limiting and exclusionary. Instead, it should explore pluriversality: the importance of local, creative, relational responses to mobile populations that are ongoing in the global south.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"319 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136067712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-21DOI: 10.1177/17550882231197720
Bogdan Ovcharuk
This article proposes that Hannah Arendt and Alexandre Kojève’s responses to Carl Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty, when combined, provide a historical and normative basis for a cosmopolitan view on human rights. I argue that by systematically merging Kojève’s theory of the “disinterested and impartial third” and Arendt’s theory of “disinterested judgment,” legal institutions, economic redistribution, and intersubjective normativity can be combined to create a robust response to Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty. To demonstrate this, I examine their efforts to resolve the contradiction between universal rights and national sovereignty from a phenomenological standpoint. Arendt’s idea of the “common world” is analyzed, showing how it upholds the idea of a non-sovereign public realm as a normative source of human rights but fails to consider the institutional and economic factors required for their realization. I then explore Kojève’s theory of impartial international legal institutions and his critique of economic colonialism to confront these factors. Additionally, Arendt’s theory of disinterested judgment is shown to address the limitations of Kojève’s phenomenological view of disinterestedness. This convergence between Kojève and Arendt provides a comprehensive response to the practical challenges of Arendt’s theory, while also highlighting the importance of “world opinion” in transforming sovereignty.
{"title":"Impartial third and disinterested judgment: Kojève and Arendt’s cosmopolitan phenomenologies of human rights as a response to Schmitt","authors":"Bogdan Ovcharuk","doi":"10.1177/17550882231197720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231197720","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes that Hannah Arendt and Alexandre Kojève’s responses to Carl Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty, when combined, provide a historical and normative basis for a cosmopolitan view on human rights. I argue that by systematically merging Kojève’s theory of the “disinterested and impartial third” and Arendt’s theory of “disinterested judgment,” legal institutions, economic redistribution, and intersubjective normativity can be combined to create a robust response to Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty. To demonstrate this, I examine their efforts to resolve the contradiction between universal rights and national sovereignty from a phenomenological standpoint. Arendt’s idea of the “common world” is analyzed, showing how it upholds the idea of a non-sovereign public realm as a normative source of human rights but fails to consider the institutional and economic factors required for their realization. I then explore Kojève’s theory of impartial international legal institutions and his critique of economic colonialism to confront these factors. Additionally, Arendt’s theory of disinterested judgment is shown to address the limitations of Kojève’s phenomenological view of disinterestedness. This convergence between Kojève and Arendt provides a comprehensive response to the practical challenges of Arendt’s theory, while also highlighting the importance of “world opinion” in transforming sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"42 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135513126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-08DOI: 10.1177/17550882231189755
Jack Basu-Mellish
This article critiques and builds upon existing notions of primary institutions within the English School, arguing for a return to Bullian notions of “necessity”—namely the minimum institutional requirements for international order—when defining the primary institutions of international society. By using notions of necessity this work seeks to develop a functional typology for primary institutions that is capable of accommodating variation and change across different historical and regional contexts. It also seeks to provide a similar functional framework for an English School understanding of domestic society and the state. This development of English School thinking aims to highlight the interrelated nature of domestic and international norms and practices, as well as highlighting the role of domestic norms in shaping the outlook of international relations practitioners.
{"title":"Returning to Hedley Bull: Necessity as an approach for defining primary institutions","authors":"Jack Basu-Mellish","doi":"10.1177/17550882231189755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231189755","url":null,"abstract":"This article critiques and builds upon existing notions of primary institutions within the English School, arguing for a return to Bullian notions of “necessity”—namely the minimum institutional requirements for international order—when defining the primary institutions of international society. By using notions of necessity this work seeks to develop a functional typology for primary institutions that is capable of accommodating variation and change across different historical and regional contexts. It also seeks to provide a similar functional framework for an English School understanding of domestic society and the state. This development of English School thinking aims to highlight the interrelated nature of domestic and international norms and practices, as well as highlighting the role of domestic norms in shaping the outlook of international relations practitioners.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136361790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1177/17550882231193116
Serdar Ş. Güner
The aim of this article is to develop Kenneth N. Waltz’s conceptualization of system structures based on the distribution of capabilities to those described by two traits at system-level: the distribution of capabilities across states and states’ geographic positions with respect to each other, that is, the contiguity configuration. The development generates taxonomies of structures evaluated as mental pictures that guide, organize, and channel thoughts by identifying the ways system structures constrain international interactions. Mental pictures are argued to derive from a multiplicity of interrelated neurophysiological processes of the brain according to functionalism which is a monist doctrine of the philosophy of mind. Mental pictures establish structural constraints as products of an algorithm based on realism and system theory depicting a neo-Kantian view of how our minds impose order on sensory data.
本文的目的是将Kenneth N. Waltz基于能力分布的系统结构概念化，发展为系统级的两个特征所描述的系统结构:跨州的能力分布和各州相对于彼此的地理位置，即邻近配置。这一发展产生了结构的分类，被评价为通过识别系统结构约束国际互动的方式来引导、组织和引导思想的心理图像。根据功能主义的思想哲学一元论，人们认为心理画面源于大脑中相互关联的神经生理过程的多样性。心理图像作为基于现实主义和系统理论的算法的产物建立了结构约束，描述了我们的思想如何对感觉数据施加秩序的新康德主义观点。
{"title":"Mental pictures, structural constraints: Kenneth N. Waltz’s approach to theory","authors":"Serdar Ş. Güner","doi":"10.1177/17550882231193116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231193116","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to develop Kenneth N. Waltz’s conceptualization of system structures based on the distribution of capabilities to those described by two traits at system-level: the distribution of capabilities across states and states’ geographic positions with respect to each other, that is, the contiguity configuration. The development generates taxonomies of structures evaluated as mental pictures that guide, organize, and channel thoughts by identifying the ways system structures constrain international interactions. Mental pictures are argued to derive from a multiplicity of interrelated neurophysiological processes of the brain according to functionalism which is a monist doctrine of the philosophy of mind. Mental pictures establish structural constraints as products of an algorithm based on realism and system theory depicting a neo-Kantian view of how our minds impose order on sensory data.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45788563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-08DOI: 10.1177/17550882231193456
Borja Niño Arnaiz
The ethics of immigration has largely remained on the abstract level, prescribing ideal principles for non-ideal circumstances. One striking example of this tendency is found in the ethics of immigration enforcement. Many authors contend that even though immigration restrictions are legitimate in principle, enforcement renders them illegitimate in practice. In this article I argue, in response to this claim, that if one supports immigration restrictions, one should also support immigration enforcement, even if it entails the use of physical force. Not enforcing immigration restrictions is unjust to law-abiding migrants, undermines the rule of law, and amounts to virtually open borders. In order to illustrate the case, I will draw upon the enforcement of tax law. My argument is that if states are allowed to go to great lengths in the enforcement of tax law, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to go to comparable lengths in the enforcement of immigration law. This analogy will provide us with the moral baseline with which to judge the permissibility of immigration enforcement. The proposal takes the rights of migrants seriously, only the right to immigrate is not one. The article also anticipates some potential objections and responds to them.
{"title":"The ethics of immigration enforcement: How far may states go?","authors":"Borja Niño Arnaiz","doi":"10.1177/17550882231193456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231193456","url":null,"abstract":"The ethics of immigration has largely remained on the abstract level, prescribing ideal principles for non-ideal circumstances. One striking example of this tendency is found in the ethics of immigration enforcement. Many authors contend that even though immigration restrictions are legitimate in principle, enforcement renders them illegitimate in practice. In this article I argue, in response to this claim, that if one supports immigration restrictions, one should also support immigration enforcement, even if it entails the use of physical force. Not enforcing immigration restrictions is unjust to law-abiding migrants, undermines the rule of law, and amounts to virtually open borders. In order to illustrate the case, I will draw upon the enforcement of tax law. My argument is that if states are allowed to go to great lengths in the enforcement of tax law, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to go to comparable lengths in the enforcement of immigration law. This analogy will provide us with the moral baseline with which to judge the permissibility of immigration enforcement. The proposal takes the rights of migrants seriously, only the right to immigrate is not one. The article also anticipates some potential objections and responds to them.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41795699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-30DOI: 10.1177/17550882231184275
Elvira Rosert
The constructivist research programme on international norms has demonstrated convincingly that, how, and why norms matter. Norms have been shown to constitute the identity of actors, to guide their behaviour into desired directions, and, altogether, to generate the normative basis of the international system. In the course of this intensive debate, its main concepts, such as the question of what constitutes a norm or different norm types, became fuzzy. Also, while the focus on the intended effects of norms certainly encompasses an essential part of the phenomenon, their unintended effects have been largely neglected. Motivated by these shortcomings, the article presents a new systematisation of effects of norms. The typology developed here discerns two types of intended effects, namely prohibitive and obligative effects, as well as two corresponding types of unintended effects, namely permissive and omissive effects.
{"title":"Effects of international norms: A typology","authors":"Elvira Rosert","doi":"10.1177/17550882231184275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231184275","url":null,"abstract":"The constructivist research programme on international norms has demonstrated convincingly that, how, and why norms matter. Norms have been shown to constitute the identity of actors, to guide their behaviour into desired directions, and, altogether, to generate the normative basis of the international system. In the course of this intensive debate, its main concepts, such as the question of what constitutes a norm or different norm types, became fuzzy. Also, while the focus on the intended effects of norms certainly encompasses an essential part of the phenomenon, their unintended effects have been largely neglected. Motivated by these shortcomings, the article presents a new systematisation of effects of norms. The typology developed here discerns two types of intended effects, namely prohibitive and obligative effects, as well as two corresponding types of unintended effects, namely permissive and omissive effects.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42310445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-22DOI: 10.1177/17550882231180646
Kimberly Hutchings
From the early work on global justice by thinkers such as Singer and O’Neill in the 1970s to the most recent philosophical work on the ethics of climate change, the fields of International and Global Ethics have been dominated by moral theories and traditions based in the western academy (Caney, 2006; Hutchings, 2018; Nell, 1975; Singer, 1972; Widdows, 2011). In particular, the field has been fundamentally shaped by deontological, utilitarian and contractualist approaches, which can all be traced back to arguments originally developed in seventeenth and eighteenth century European thought. Alternative moral approaches have also predominantly drawn on western sources, including virtue, care and postmodernist ethics. Only in the last decade have we begun to see more arguments stemming from ethical traditions beyond the west. These have often drawn on alternative religious and spiritual traditions as a source of insight into how we should think about global relations between people and between people and their environment (Chimakonam, 2017; Metz, 2014; Schönfeld, 2011). In addition, we have begun to see work that brings decolonial insights to bear on questions of global justice, humanitarianism, climate change, migration, global health and so on (Bell, 2019; Graness, 2015; Lu, 2017). This includes some attempts to think through what it might mean for Global Ethics if we cannot take for granted the purported universalism of dominant moral paradigms (Dunford, 2017; Hutchings, 2019). However, Fitzgerald’s book is the first really sustained attempt to go beyond expressions of dissatisfaction with the parochialism of the resources on which much work in Global Ethics relies to develop a new way forward. In Care and the Pluriverse, she makes a novel argument that brings together literatures on the idea of the pluriverse with the critical ethics of care as a basis for developing a new direction for thinking in Global Ethics. Fitzgerald’s approach to rethinking Global Ethics starts from the mutual implication of a commitment to pluriversality and the critical ethics of care. The contemporary conception of the pluriverse, developed by decolonial and indigenous scholars and activists in Latin America, is that there is no single, universal world (ontology) in which all inhabitants of the world participate. The idea is explained most commonly by pointing to contrasts between modern and indigenous being (worlds), the former characterised by an oppositional ontological distinction between culture and nature, the latter by 1180646 IPT0010.1177/17550882231180646Journal of International Political TheoryBook Roundtable book-review2023
{"title":"Care and the Pluriverse: A Review, by Maggie Fitzgerald","authors":"Kimberly Hutchings","doi":"10.1177/17550882231180646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231180646","url":null,"abstract":"From the early work on global justice by thinkers such as Singer and O’Neill in the 1970s to the most recent philosophical work on the ethics of climate change, the fields of International and Global Ethics have been dominated by moral theories and traditions based in the western academy (Caney, 2006; Hutchings, 2018; Nell, 1975; Singer, 1972; Widdows, 2011). In particular, the field has been fundamentally shaped by deontological, utilitarian and contractualist approaches, which can all be traced back to arguments originally developed in seventeenth and eighteenth century European thought. Alternative moral approaches have also predominantly drawn on western sources, including virtue, care and postmodernist ethics. Only in the last decade have we begun to see more arguments stemming from ethical traditions beyond the west. These have often drawn on alternative religious and spiritual traditions as a source of insight into how we should think about global relations between people and between people and their environment (Chimakonam, 2017; Metz, 2014; Schönfeld, 2011). In addition, we have begun to see work that brings decolonial insights to bear on questions of global justice, humanitarianism, climate change, migration, global health and so on (Bell, 2019; Graness, 2015; Lu, 2017). This includes some attempts to think through what it might mean for Global Ethics if we cannot take for granted the purported universalism of dominant moral paradigms (Dunford, 2017; Hutchings, 2019). However, Fitzgerald’s book is the first really sustained attempt to go beyond expressions of dissatisfaction with the parochialism of the resources on which much work in Global Ethics relies to develop a new way forward. In Care and the Pluriverse, she makes a novel argument that brings together literatures on the idea of the pluriverse with the critical ethics of care as a basis for developing a new direction for thinking in Global Ethics. Fitzgerald’s approach to rethinking Global Ethics starts from the mutual implication of a commitment to pluriversality and the critical ethics of care. The contemporary conception of the pluriverse, developed by decolonial and indigenous scholars and activists in Latin America, is that there is no single, universal world (ontology) in which all inhabitants of the world participate. The idea is explained most commonly by pointing to contrasts between modern and indigenous being (worlds), the former characterised by an oppositional ontological distinction between culture and nature, the latter by 1180646 IPT0010.1177/17550882231180646Journal of International Political TheoryBook Roundtable book-review2023","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"335 - 339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49252888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-17DOI: 10.1177/17550882231181422
M. FitzGerald
The decolonial concept of the pluriverse challenges the idea of a single world with different paradigms, and instead points to a matrix of multiple distinct yet connected worlds. In so doing, the pluriverse highlights radical ontological and epistemological difference and the implications of such difference for politics. Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, my own contribution to decolonial scholarship in international political theory, focuses specifically on the question of how to build a pluriversal ethics. This article engages with Kimberly Hutchings, Fiona Robinson, and Vivienne Jabri’s commentaries on the book, and ultimately argues that vulnerability can serve as a generative meta-ethical orientation for building the pluriverse with care.
{"title":"Building the pluriverse with care","authors":"M. FitzGerald","doi":"10.1177/17550882231181422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231181422","url":null,"abstract":"The decolonial concept of the pluriverse challenges the idea of a single world with different paradigms, and instead points to a matrix of multiple distinct yet connected worlds. In so doing, the pluriverse highlights radical ontological and epistemological difference and the implications of such difference for politics. Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, my own contribution to decolonial scholarship in international political theory, focuses specifically on the question of how to build a pluriversal ethics. This article engages with Kimberly Hutchings, Fiona Robinson, and Vivienne Jabri’s commentaries on the book, and ultimately argues that vulnerability can serve as a generative meta-ethical orientation for building the pluriverse with care.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"353 - 360"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42846759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-14DOI: 10.1177/17550882231182169
F. Robinson
The questions and issues that make up the field of global ethics have, for several decades now, largely been understood through the binary framework of ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘communitarianism’. Despite the widespread criticism of the limitations of this dualism, and some attempts to ‘qualify or hyphenate core terms’ it has proven ‘remarkably difficult to escape or transcend’ the cosmopolitanism-communitarianism framework (Sutch, 2018: 35). Maggie Fitzgerald’s new book, Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, manages not only manages to escape these familiar categories, but to break new ground in global ethics.
{"title":"Beyond ‘globalizing’ care: Care ethics for the pluriverse","authors":"F. Robinson","doi":"10.1177/17550882231182169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231182169","url":null,"abstract":"The questions and issues that make up the field of global ethics have, for several decades now, largely been understood through the binary framework of ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘communitarianism’. Despite the widespread criticism of the limitations of this dualism, and some attempts to ‘qualify or hyphenate core terms’ it has proven ‘remarkably difficult to escape or transcend’ the cosmopolitanism-communitarianism framework (Sutch, 2018: 35). Maggie Fitzgerald’s new book, Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, manages not only manages to escape these familiar categories, but to break new ground in global ethics.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"340 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46081678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-09DOI: 10.1177/17550882231181610
Vivienne Jabri
The article engages with Maggie Fitzgerald’s Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics. It focuses primarily on Fitzgerald’s ontoepistemological reading of relationality and difference, suggesting an alternative reading of both concepts, one that is keeping with a more open, plural and therefore critical understanding.
{"title":"Ontology, relationality and an alternative reading of ‘difference’","authors":"Vivienne Jabri","doi":"10.1177/17550882231181610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231181610","url":null,"abstract":"The article engages with Maggie Fitzgerald’s Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics. It focuses primarily on Fitzgerald’s ontoepistemological reading of relationality and difference, suggesting an alternative reading of both concepts, one that is keeping with a more open, plural and therefore critical understanding.","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"345 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46933734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：