《自治领》和《法律帝国

Fenner L. Stewart
{"title":"《自治领》和《法律帝国","authors":"Fenner L. Stewart","doi":"10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Civic republicanism endorses a freedom ideology that can support the corporate social responsibility movement [CSR] in some of the challenges it faces. This article is a call for CSR to embrace this normative guidance as a superior alternative to mainstream liberalism. Part I is the introduction. Part II discusses the institutional changes that gave rise to CSR’s present incarnation. Part III builds upon this discussion, explaining how corporate risk management strategies pose a threat to CSR’s persuasive authority today. It then considers CSR’s options for enhancing governance when such persuasive authority is not available. It determines that inspiring integrity – above all else – is integral to success and that, in turn, the removal of moral distance is key to inspiring such integrity. It also notes that whether a form of coercive authority exists or not to back a governance mechanism, the removal of moral distance will be key to its effectiveness. Part IV notes that efforts to remove moral distance have been attempted since the 1970s, but time has proven that business actors have been resilient to meaningful change. It argues that this failure to reduce moral distance is, in part, the result of mainstream liberalism, which continues to nullify such efforts to make business actors feel more accountable for the impacts of their decision-making. It then explores liberalism, detangling the meaning of possibly the most contested, and normatively powerful, concept from the twentieth century to the present. Part V explains civic republicanism. It then explores civic republicanism’s conceptual proximity to liberalism. Part VI makes the case for why civic republicanism ought to amend the liberal message, recasting the rights and responsibilities of both imperium (that is, the authority of the sovereign) and dominium (that is, the private authority usually emanating from property and contract) within society. Part VII concludes with a short reflection on the ground covered.","PeriodicalId":56232,"journal":{"name":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dominium and The Empire of Laws\",\"authors\":\"Fenner L. Stewart\",\"doi\":\"10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Civic republicanism endorses a freedom ideology that can support the corporate social responsibility movement [CSR] in some of the challenges it faces. This article is a call for CSR to embrace this normative guidance as a superior alternative to mainstream liberalism. Part I is the introduction. Part II discusses the institutional changes that gave rise to CSR’s present incarnation. Part III builds upon this discussion, explaining how corporate risk management strategies pose a threat to CSR’s persuasive authority today. It then considers CSR’s options for enhancing governance when such persuasive authority is not available. It determines that inspiring integrity – above all else – is integral to success and that, in turn, the removal of moral distance is key to inspiring such integrity. It also notes that whether a form of coercive authority exists or not to back a governance mechanism, the removal of moral distance will be key to its effectiveness. Part IV notes that efforts to remove moral distance have been attempted since the 1970s, but time has proven that business actors have been resilient to meaningful change. It argues that this failure to reduce moral distance is, in part, the result of mainstream liberalism, which continues to nullify such efforts to make business actors feel more accountable for the impacts of their decision-making. It then explores liberalism, detangling the meaning of possibly the most contested, and normatively powerful, concept from the twentieth century to the present. Part V explains civic republicanism. It then explores civic republicanism’s conceptual proximity to liberalism. Part VI makes the case for why civic republicanism ought to amend the liberal message, recasting the rights and responsibilities of both imperium (that is, the authority of the sovereign) and dominium (that is, the private authority usually emanating from property and contract) within society. Part VII concludes with a short reflection on the ground covered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

公民共和主义支持一种自由的意识形态,这种意识形态可以在企业社会责任运动面临的一些挑战中支持它。本文呼吁企业社会责任接受这种规范指导,将其作为主流自由主义的一种优越选择。第一部分是绪论。第二部分讨论了导致企业社会责任目前形式的制度变迁。第三部分在此讨论的基础上,解释了企业风险管理策略如何对企业社会责任的说服力构成威胁。然后,当没有这种有说服力的权威时,它会考虑企业社会责任加强治理的选择。它决定了激励正直——高于一切——是成功的组成部分,而反过来,消除道德距离是激励这种正直的关键。它还指出,无论是否存在某种形式的强制性权威来支持治理机制,消除道德距离将是其有效性的关键。第四部分指出,自20世纪70年代以来,人们一直试图消除道德距离,但时间证明,商业行为者对有意义的变革具有弹性。它认为,未能减少道德距离的部分原因是主流自由主义的结果,这种自由主义继续使使商业行为者对其决策的影响承担更多责任的努力无效。然后,它探讨了自由主义,梳理了从20世纪到现在可能是最具争议的、规范上最强大的概念的含义。第五部分解释了公民共和主义。然后探讨了公民共和主义与自由主义在概念上的接近。第六部分阐述了为什么公民共和主义应该修正自由主义的信息,重新定义社会中imperium(即君主的权威)和dominium(即通常源于财产和契约的私人权威)的权利和责任。第七部分以对所涉及的问题的简短反思作为结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dominium and The Empire of Laws
Civic republicanism endorses a freedom ideology that can support the corporate social responsibility movement [CSR] in some of the challenges it faces. This article is a call for CSR to embrace this normative guidance as a superior alternative to mainstream liberalism. Part I is the introduction. Part II discusses the institutional changes that gave rise to CSR’s present incarnation. Part III builds upon this discussion, explaining how corporate risk management strategies pose a threat to CSR’s persuasive authority today. It then considers CSR’s options for enhancing governance when such persuasive authority is not available. It determines that inspiring integrity – above all else – is integral to success and that, in turn, the removal of moral distance is key to inspiring such integrity. It also notes that whether a form of coercive authority exists or not to back a governance mechanism, the removal of moral distance will be key to its effectiveness. Part IV notes that efforts to remove moral distance have been attempted since the 1970s, but time has proven that business actors have been resilient to meaningful change. It argues that this failure to reduce moral distance is, in part, the result of mainstream liberalism, which continues to nullify such efforts to make business actors feel more accountable for the impacts of their decision-making. It then explores liberalism, detangling the meaning of possibly the most contested, and normatively powerful, concept from the twentieth century to the present. Part V explains civic republicanism. It then explores civic republicanism’s conceptual proximity to liberalism. Part VI makes the case for why civic republicanism ought to amend the liberal message, recasting the rights and responsibilities of both imperium (that is, the authority of the sovereign) and dominium (that is, the private authority usually emanating from property and contract) within society. Part VII concludes with a short reflection on the ground covered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Swimming Up Niagara Falls! The Battle to Get Disability Rights Added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The Triumph of the “Therapeutic” in Quebec Courts: Mental Health, Behavioural Reform and the Decline of Rights The Influence of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Canadian Jurisprudence in the First Decade Since its Ratification Students in Name Only: Improving the Working Conditions of Articled Students Via the Application of the BC Employment Standards Act People With Disabilities Need Lawyers Too! A Ready-To-Use Plan for Law Schools to Educate Law Students to Effectively Serve the Legal Needs of Clients With Disabilities as Well as Clients Without Disabilities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1