难民与政治哲学的局限

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Ethics & Global Politics Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/16544951.2020.1735017
S. Fine
{"title":"难民与政治哲学的局限","authors":"S. Fine","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2020.1735017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, but in practice many people seek asylum and do not find it. Where asylum is in short supply, it may seem obvious and reasonable for philosophers to ask whether we can identify principles for prioritizing the asylum claims of some over those of others. In this paper I consider what kind of question this is, and whether it is one that philosophers are in a good position to address. I argue that philosophers have a number of powerful reasons to approach it with serious caution, and even to avoid it altogether. I outline some potential pitfalls of answering it, including the risk of normalizing violations of the principle of non-refoulement.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refugees and the limits of political philosophy\",\"authors\":\"S. Fine\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2020.1735017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, but in practice many people seek asylum and do not find it. Where asylum is in short supply, it may seem obvious and reasonable for philosophers to ask whether we can identify principles for prioritizing the asylum claims of some over those of others. In this paper I consider what kind of question this is, and whether it is one that philosophers are in a good position to address. I argue that philosophers have a number of powerful reasons to approach it with serious caution, and even to avoid it altogether. I outline some potential pitfalls of answering it, including the risk of normalizing violations of the principle of non-refoulement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2020.1735017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2020.1735017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

每个人都有权在其他国家寻求和享受庇护以避免迫害,但在实践中,许多人寻求庇护却没有找到。在庇护供不应求的情况下,哲学家们提出这样的问题似乎是显而易见的,也是合情合理的:我们能否确定一些原则,优先考虑一些人的庇护申请,而不是其他人的。在本文中,我将考虑这是一个什么样的问题,以及哲学家们是否能够很好地解决这个问题。我认为,哲学家们有许多强有力的理由来谨慎对待它,甚至完全避免它。我概述了回答这个问题的一些潜在陷阱,包括将违反不驱回原则的行为正常化的风险。
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
Refugees and the limits of political philosophy
ABSTRACT Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, but in practice many people seek asylum and do not find it. Where asylum is in short supply, it may seem obvious and reasonable for philosophers to ask whether we can identify principles for prioritizing the asylum claims of some over those of others. In this paper I consider what kind of question this is, and whether it is one that philosophers are in a good position to address. I argue that philosophers have a number of powerful reasons to approach it with serious caution, and even to avoid it altogether. I outline some potential pitfalls of answering it, including the risk of normalizing violations of the principle of non-refoulement.
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
What does populism mean for democracy? Populist practice, democracy and constitutionalism Effective altruism, tithing, and a principle of progressive giving The function of solidarity and its normative implications The Humanity of Universal Crime: Inclusion, Inequality, and Intervention in International Political Thought On why the poor have duties too
×
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