Two concepts of sovereignty: From westphalia to the law of peoples?

International Politics

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 499-514

  Fagelson, David ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; NEW WORLD ORDER; SOVEREIGNTY; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 0035713915     PISSN: 13845748     EISSN: 17403898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ip.8897049     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Such divergent representatives as Rawls and Walzer agree on the right, if not the obligation, to violate national boundaries to protect the human rights of innocents. Michael Walzer, Just And Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), pp. 339-342.
2. Indeed, Rawls goes so far as to label these sorts of regimes as criminal states, implying that they ought to be brought to justice rather than have their sovereignty respected. John Rawls, the Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 91-93.
3. Michael Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States,” inc. Beitz, etal, eds., International Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 220.
4. Brain Barry, “Self-Government Revisited,” pp. 133-141 in D. Miller and L. Sweden top, eds., The Nature of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
5. For a discussion of how this exhaustion led to political accommodation see Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 249-254.
6. The signatories agreed not to persecute religious minorities within their own states thereby giving up the sort of internal autonomy that the Treaty had professed to distribute.
7. For a skeptical account of this principle see Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), esp. chaps. 4-6.
8. Henry Shue, Basic Rights, 2nd ed.(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 13-34.
9. Henry Shue, Basic Rights, 2nd ed.(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp 59-62.
10. Henry Shue, Basic Rights, 2nd ed.(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 84-85.
11. Aristotle, The Politics, Stephen Everson, ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
12. Thomas Hurka, Perfectionism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), Chapter 2.
13. Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 311.
14. Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) pp 12-13.
15. Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) pp. 25-30.
16. Rawls does say it is liberal peoples who will be limited more by reason but this still does not explain why liberal states or a society of politically liberal people would not accomplish this more effectively. The Morality of Freedom. pp. 29-30.
17. Krasner, The Morality of Freedom pp. 20-25.
18. Tamir, op. cit., Chapter 6. For alternative approaches ofreconciling group loyalty and individual autonomy see George Fletcher, Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993)
19. David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)
20. Maurizio Viroli, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism And Nationalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).
21. See Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) for one of the more prominent examples of this critique.
22. Rawls, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice pp. 60-61.
23. Walzer, “The Moral Standing of States,” Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p. 219.
24. Michael Walzer, Thick And Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame, IN: Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1994), pp. 65-67.
25. Michael Walzer, Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 24-25.
26. Walzer Thick And Thin, interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 77-81
27. Rawls, interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 59-62.
28. Michael Walzer, Toleration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 10-11.
29. Michael Walzer, Toleration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997) p. 19.
30. Michael Walzer, Toleration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997) pp. 25-26.
31. Rawls, Toleration, p. 85. Rawls does say that private charities could condition such foreign aid on reform.
32. Rawls, Toleration, pp. 126-127.
33. Ronald Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 107.
34. Martin Luther King, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” in M. Cohen and N. Fermon, eds., Princeton Readings in Political Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 624.
35. Martin Luther King, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” in M. Cohen and N. Fermon, eds., Princeton Readings in Political Thought, pp. 136-137.
36. Martin Luther King, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” in M. Cohen and N. Fermon, eds., Princeton Readings in Political Thought, pp. 132-133.
37. Rawls, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” in M. Cohen and N. Fermon, eds., Princeton Readings in Political Thought, pp. 84-85.