难民、合法性和发展

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Ethics & Global Politics Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082
D. Owen
{"title":"难民、合法性和发展","authors":"D. Owen","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refugees, legitimacy and development\",\"authors\":\"D. Owen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082\",\"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/10.1080/16544951.2021.1926082","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: 3

摘要

本文主要探讨吉莉安·布洛克对难民问题的处理。在注意到我们将难民制度视为合法性修复(欧文)或合法性纠正(布洛克)机制的密切相关的理论方法之间的潜在区别之后,我对我们处理这一制度的方式进行了对比,并认为我的历史方法和布洛克的现在主义方法之间的差异最终对我们如何理解难民的原因产生了影响。关注她对难民保护的发展转向的倡导,我开始担心她对这种方法的阐述与贝茨和科利尔的人道主义观点过于紧密地联系在一起,在某种程度上低估了难民自治的政治权利的重要性。
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, legitimacy and development
ABSTRACT In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.
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