The Experts below are selected from a list of 208122 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

James M. Wilce - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Paul Craig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Financial Crisis, the European Union Institutional Order, and Constitutional Responsibility
    Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 2015
    Co-Authors: Paul Craig
    Abstract:

    The financial crisis sent shock waves throughout the European Union, the effects of which are still being felt. This article focuses on the Institutional dimension of the crisis, and examines its impact on the relationship between the member states and the European Union, and between the organs of the European Union itself. The analysis is undertaken from a temporal perspective. It begins with consideration of the treaty provisions that shaped the balance of power within the European Union, and who bears the primary responsibility for this form of Institutional Ordering. It is argued that while there is a very considerable literature on democracy deficit in the European Union, there has been neglect of the constitutional responsibility that member states bear for the Institutional status quo. The nature of this constitutional responsibility is elaborated in the first section of the article. This is followed by discussion of the shaping of the Treaty provisions concerning economic and monetary union, and the way in which these bear the imprint of the choices made by the member states as to the degree of intrusion into national economic governance by the European Union that they were willing to accept. The penultimate section of the article considers the role played by the different EU institutions during the crisis as it unfolded, and this is followed in the final section by evaluation of the interInstitutional consequences of the measures adopted to meet the crisis.

  • The Financial Crisis, the EU Institutional Order and Constitutional Responsibility
    Social Science Research Network, 2014
    Co-Authors: Paul Craig
    Abstract:

    The financial crisis is arguably the most significant challenge to the EU since the inception of the EEC. It has generated an array of political, legal and Institutional responses the complexity of which is daunting in itself. The current paper considers these developments, and places them within a broader frame of Institutional concerns, thereby facilitating thought about their impact on issues that have been debated more generally within the EU. The analysis has two principal themes, Institutional design and constitutional responsibility for the choices thus made. These twin themes are considered in temporal perspective. The discussion begins with the foundational Institutional architecture for EU decision-making, and the debates that this has generated about democracy deficit. There has been a further resurgence of these concerns in the light of the crisis. While this is unsurprising, there is nonetheless a surprising lack of discourse as to responsibility for the status quo, and an equally surprising lack of serious discussion as to how we should think of the constitutional responsibility of Member States and not just the EU itself for the current Institutional Ordering. The paper develops two contrasting senses of constitutional responsibility and the implications of the choice between them for how we conceive of the EU and the role of Member States therein.The analysis then shifts to the Institutional architecture of the EMU laid down in the Maastricht Treaty, with the focus once again on the relationship between the Institutional attribution of power, constitutional responsibility for the shaping of these provisions, and the way in which the schema contributed to the subsequent economic malaise. The relationship between this Institutional schema and subsidiarity will also be explored. The penultimate section of the paper considers the Institutional schema that was used to deal with the financial crisis while it unfolded and the extent to which this can be properly portrayed in intergovernmental or supranational terms. The focus in the final section of the paper is on the measures that have been put in place thus far, and the Institutional implications that this has had for the balance of power, both vertical and horizontal.

Thomas Pogge - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • What is Global Justice
    Social Science Research Network, 2008
    Co-Authors: Thomas Pogge
    Abstract:

    The increasingly widespread expression "global justice" marks an important shift in the structure of moral discourse. Traditionally, international relations were seen as sharply distinct from domestic justice. First, it focused on interactions among states, and later, evaluated the design of a national Institutional Order in light of its effects on citizens. Such Institutional moral analysis is becoming applied to supranational Institutional arrangements, nowadays more pervasive and important for the life prospects of individuals. The traditional lens suggested fair agreements among states. The new lens shows that the global Institutional Order is unfair because it enriches elites in both rich and poor countries and perpetuates the oppression and impoverishment of the majority.

  • Cosmopolitanism: a defence
    Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2002
    Co-Authors: Thomas Pogge
    Abstract:

    David Miller is right that weak cosmopolitanism is undistinctive and strong cosmopolitanism implausibly curtails associative duties. But there are intermediate views that avoid both of these problems. One such view holds that compatriotism makes no difference to our most important negative duties and that among these is the duty not to impose unjust social institutions upon other human beings. On this view, our duty not to impose an unjust Institutional Order on foreigners is exactly as stringent as our duty not to impose an unjust Institutional Order upon our compatriots. This view is not trivial; it has important consequences for our moral responsibilities in the world as it is. And it is compatible with associative duties insofar as these increase what we owe to some without decreasing what we owe to persons at large.

  • The International Significance of Human Rights
    The Journal of Ethics, 2000
    Co-Authors: Thomas Pogge
    Abstract:

    A comparative examination of four alternative ways of understanding what human rights are supports an Institutional understanding as suggested by Article 28 of the Universal Declaration: Human rights are weighty moral claims on any coercively imposed Institutional Order, national or international (as Article 28 confirms). Any such Order must afford the persons on whom it is imposed secure access to the objects of their human rights. This understanding of human rights is broadly sharable across cultures and narrows the philosophical and practical differences between the friends of civil and political and the champions of social, economic, and cultural human rights. When applied to the global Institutional Order, it provides a new argument for conceiving human rights as universal - and a new basis for criticizing this Order as too encouraging of oppression, corruption, and poverty in the developing countries: We have a negative duty not to cooperate in the imposition of this global Order if feasible reforms of it would significantly improve the realization of human rights.

Samantha Besson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Sovereign States and their International Institutional Order
    Jus Cogens, 2020
    Co-Authors: Samantha Besson
    Abstract:

    International law’s legitimacy has come under serious attack lately, including, and maybe even more so, in regimes considered democratic. Reading Dworkin’s New Philosophy for International Law in the current context is a timely reminder of the centrality of the political legitimacy of international law. Interestingly, indeed, his account does not succumb to the (however progressive) cosmopolitan ideal of an international political community. Nor is it reducible to a concern for domestic justice in which political legitimacy is only self-regarding. By revisiting seventeenth century international legal theories, Dworkin sends both cosmopolitans and statists back-to-back. He (re-)discovers a third way in which to conceive of statehood today: not on its own, but in a mirror-image fashion and against the background of the international Institutional Order without which there would be no equal sovereign States, but no individual equality either. Carrying Dworkin’s argument forward, this article identifies and discusses three of its crucial contributions with respect to the objects, subjects and institutions of international legitimacy that deserve further attention. It concludes with different proposals regarding the design and organization of other international institutions than States, both public and private, by reference to their relationship to States (and their people). According to Dworkin, this should enable us to improve not only the legitimacy of the international Institutional Order as whole, but also the political legitimacy of each State therein since both are mutually related.

  • sovereign states and their international Institutional Order carrying forward dworkin s work on the political legitimacy of international law
    Jus Cogens, 2020
    Co-Authors: Samantha Besson
    Abstract:

    International law’s legitimacy has come under serious attack lately, including, and maybe even more so, in regimes considered democratic. Reading Dworkin’s New Philosophy for International Law in the current context is a timely reminder of the centrality of the political legitimacy of international law. Interestingly, indeed, his account does not succumb to the (however progressive) cosmopolitan ideal of an international political community. Nor is it reducible to a concern for domestic justice in which political legitimacy is only self-regarding. By revisiting seventeenth century international legal theories, Dworkin sends both cosmopolitans and statists back-to-back. He (re-)discovers a third way in which to conceive of statehood today: not on its own, but in a mirror-image fashion and against the background of the international Institutional Order without which there would be no equal sovereign States, but no individual equality either. Carrying Dworkin’s argument forward, this article identifies and discusses three of its crucial contributions with respect to the objects, subjects and institutions of international legitimacy that deserve further attention. It concludes with different proposals regarding the design and organization of other international institutions than States, both public and private, by reference to their relationship to States (and their people). According to Dworkin, this should enable us to improve not only the legitimacy of the international Institutional Order as whole, but also the political legitimacy of each State therein since both are mutually related.

  • Sovereign States and their International Institutional Order: Carrying Forward Dworkin’s Work on the Political Legitimacy of International Law
    Jus Cogens, 2020
    Co-Authors: Samantha Besson
    Abstract:

    International law’s legitimacy has come under serious attack lately, including, and maybe even more so, in regimes considered democratic. Reading Dworkin’s New Philosophy for International Law in the current context is a timely reminder of the centrality of the political legitimacy of international law. Interestingly, indeed, his account does not succumb to the (however progressive) cosmopolitan ideal of an international political community. Nor is it reducible to a concern for domestic justice in which political legitimacy is only self-regarding. By revisiting seventeenth century international legal theories, Dworkin sends both cosmopolitans and statists back-to-back. He (re-)discovers a third way in which to conceive of statehood today: not on its own, but in a mirror-image fashion and against the background of the international Institutional Order without which there would be no equal sovereign States, but no individual equality either. Carrying Dworkin’s argument forward, this article identifies and discusses three of its crucial contributions with respect to the objects, subjects and institutions of international legitimacy that deserve further attention. It concludes with different proposals regarding the design and organization of other international institutions than States, both public and private, by reference to their relationship to States (and their people). According to Dworkin, this should enable us to improve not only the legitimacy of the international Institutional Order as whole, but also the political legitimacy of each State therein since both are mutually related.

Marcus J. Kurtz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Latin American State Building in Comparative Perspective: Social Foundations of Institutional Order
    2013
    Co-Authors: Marcus J. Kurtz
    Abstract:

    1. The difficulties of state building 2. The social foundations of state building in the contemporary era 3. State formation in Chile and Peru: institution building and atrophy in unlikely settings 4. State formation in Argentina and Uruguay: agrarian capitalism, elite conflict, and the construction of cooperation 5. Divergence reinforced: the timing of political inclusion and state strength in Chile and Peru 6. The social question and the state: mass mobilization, suffrage, and Institutional development in Argentina and Uruguay 7. Conclusions, implications, and extensions: social foundations, Germany/Prussia, and the limits of contemporary state building Bibliography.

  • The Social Foundations of Institutional Order: Reconsidering War and the “Resource Curse” in Third World State Building:
    Politics & Society, 2009
    Co-Authors: Marcus J. Kurtz
    Abstract:

    This manuscript departs strongly from conventional accounts that ascribe a central role to war and the threat of war in Third World state building. Similarly, it challenges the conventional wisdom that abundant exportable natural resource wealth is likely to provoke Institutional atrophy. Instead, it argues that a set of logically prior conditions—the social relations that govern the principal economic sectors and the pattern or intraelite conflict or compromise—launch path-dependent processes that help determine when, and if, either strategic conflict or resource wealth contribute to, or impede, Institutional development. The argument is tested in the comparative analysis of the state-building process in two Andean neighbors (Chile and Peru), both of which are situated in similar strategic and natural resource environments but which produced qualitatively different outcomes in terms of state capacity or “strength.â€