The Experts below are selected from a list of 339594 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Chris Armstrong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Global Egalitarianism or National Self-Determination?
After the Nation?, 2010Co-Authors: Chris ArmstrongAbstract:This chapter examines the challenge that claims for global justice have been said to pose for the nation, and the value of National Self-Determination in particular. A debate has arisen between defenders of global justice and defenders of National Self-Determination, with the latter camp sometimes arguing that although some forms of global justice are valuable, the call for global equality, if realized, would seriously endanger any meaningful form of Self-Determination (and as such, global egalitarianism must of necessity be ‘postNational’ in form). The first section sets out the apparent opposition between the two positions. The second section looks a little more closely at the arguments of defenders of Self-Determination and examines just why, in their view, their concerns rule out global egalitarianism as a theory of global justice. The third section shows why the view that a concern for National Self-Determination rules out global egalitarianism as an account of global justice is mistaken for a number of reasons, as I have argued in more detail elsewhere (Armstrong, 2010). Actually, global egalitarians are able to carve out space for Self-Determination in a variety of ways. The fourth section concludes by asking whether they should. It is claimed here that there are good reasons to reserve room for legitimate forms of Self-Determination. But my argument will give limited relief to Nationalists, because the forms of Self-Determination that are likely to be valuable to individuals worldwide are likely only partly to overlap with National forms of government.
-
National Self-Determination, Global Equality and Moral Arbitrariness
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Chris ArmstrongAbstract:Within the debate over global distributive justice, the most challenging proposals - those forwarded by global egalitarians - have attracted the objection that their ideals are incompatible with recognising the legitimate Self-Determination of National communities. In response, we might say that surely global egalitarians can accord some value to the ideal of Self-Determination, and still be global egalitarians. There must be a range of ways in which the two values could be traded off against each other. I pursue a stronger response in this paper by revealing the many ways in which global egalitarians can make space for Self-Determination without trading it off against equality. Clearing room for National Self-Determination - assuming for the purposes of this paper that this is a worthy objective - will not be entirely straightforward for global egalitarians, though. I argue later on that global egalitarians need to be more circumspect about their argument that inequalities which track National membership should be condemned as ‘morally arbitrary’ in nature. Though this objection from moral arbitrariness supplies what can be considered the founding intuition of global egalitarianism, those who would advance it have not been clear about just when - and why - Nationality-tracking inequalities should be rejected, and a lack of clarity about this stands in the way of the accommodation I am suggesting might be made.
-
National Self‐Determination, Global Equality and Moral Arbitrariness
Journal of Political Philosophy, 2009Co-Authors: Chris ArmstrongAbstract:Within the debate over global distributive justice, the most challenging proposals - those forwarded by global egalitarians - have attracted the objection that their ideals are incompatible with recognising the legitimate Self-Determination of National communities. In response, we might say that surely global egalitarians can accord some value to the ideal of Self-Determination, and still be global egalitarians. There must be a range of ways in which the two values could be traded off against each other. I pursue a stronger response in this paper by revealing the many ways in which global egalitarians can make space for Self-Determination without trading it off against equality. Clearing room for National Self-Determination - assuming for the purposes of this paper that this is a worthy objective - will not be entirely straightforward for global egalitarians, though. I argue later on that global egalitarians need to be more circumspect about their argument that inequalities which track National membership should be condemned as ‘morally arbitrary’ in nature. Though this objection from moral arbitrariness supplies what can be considered the founding intuition of global egalitarianism, those who would advance it have not been clear about just when - and why - Nationality-tracking inequalities should be rejected, and a lack of clarity about this stands in the way of the accommodation I am suggesting might be made.
Chimène I. Keitner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
National Self-Determination in Historical Perspective 1789/1989: Insights from the French Revolution for Today's Debates
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Chimène I. KeitnerAbstract:This article explores the role of the nation-state principle in interNational politics: that is, the often tacit assumption that nations and states are or should be congruent, and that a presumptive right to National Self-Determination exists where this is not the case. The political resonance of the nation and sympathy for claims to its ethical primacy come largely from the association between nationhood and self-government, a connection often traced to the French Revolution. The article identifies four "paradoxes" involved in claims to National Self-Determination, derived from a close reading of political debates at the time of the French Revolution: conception, constitution, composition, and confrontation. Conception refers to the puzzle of how one can imagine a voluntarist nation separate from political institutions. Constitution involves the problem of identifying authoritative spokespeople who can make political and territorial claims on behalf of the nation. Composition refers to the challenge of defining membership criteria that are maximally inclusive, while fostering sufficient cohesion, commitment, and compliance to support shared social, legal, and political institutions. Confrontation involves the tensions between universalism and particularism in interNational relations, particularly for nation-states that seek to export their domestic political models. This historically grounded analysis suggests how the tenacity of the nation-state principle complicates efforts to imagine, and to implement, more flexible models of governance.
-
National Self‐Determination in Historical Perspective: The Legacy of the French Revolution for Today's Debates
International Studies Review, 2000Co-Authors: Chimène I. KeitnerAbstract:This essay examines the role of the nation-state principle in interNational politics-that is, the often tacit assumption that nations and states are or should be congruent-and that a presumptive right to National Self-Determination exists where this is not the case. The political resonance of the “nation” and sympathy for claims to its ethical primacy come largely from the association between nationhood and self-government, a connection often traced to the French Revolution. On both the historical and the conceptual levels, the experience of the French Revolution offers key insights into the logic of National Self-Determination and its implications as an interNational political standard. The nation-state principle rests on the idea of the nation as an automatically cohesive and distinct portion of humanity that, by its very nature, is entitled to self-government and freedom from external intervention. In fact, an analytical framework derived from the revolution shows how the tenacity of the nation-state principle threatens efforts to develop more flexible models of governance. Pinpointing the tensions and clarifying the premises underlying this principle contribute to understanding and resolving conflicts over the legitimacy of political and territorial claims.
Omar Dahbour - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Nation-State as a Political Community: A Critique of the Communitarian Argument for National Self-Determination
Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1996Co-Authors: Omar DahbourAbstract:The principle of National Self-Determination has usually been justified by extending to National groups an entitlement that individuals are regarded as having, namely, to the conditions necessary for their self development. In order to extend the concept of Self-Determination to nations in this way, an argument that it is important for nations to exist within their own political communities must be given. In this essay, I describe and criticize one type of argument for such a principle of National Self-Determination – what I will call the communitarian argument.Contemporary communitarians (such as Michael Walzer and David Miller) usually contend that determining who rightfully has membership in a political community must precede the allocation of rights and responsibilities between members. Community is understood to mean a National community; membership in communities therefore results from the ascription of National identities to individuals and to the consequent sorting out of loyalties that follows from this ascription. A right of Self-Determination for nations is required, on this view, in order to ensure that political communities are legitimately formed in accordance with National identities.
-
The Nation-State as a Political Community: A Critique of the Communitarian Argument for National Self-Determination
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume, 1996Co-Authors: Omar DahbourAbstract:(1997). The Nation-State as a Political Community: A Critique of the Communitarian Argument for National Self-Determination. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 26, Supplementary Volume 22: Rethinking Nationalism, pp. 311-343.
Margaret Moore - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Ethics of Secession and a Normative Theory of Nationalism
Social Science Research Network, 2001Co-Authors: Margaret MooreAbstract:The three major normative theories of secession are just-cause theories, choice theories, and National Self-Determination theories. Just-cause and choice theories are problematic because they view secession in terms of the application of liberal theories of justice or a liberal principle of autonomy, without regard for the dynamics of Nationalist mobilization and National politics. National Self-Determination theories can be supported by a collective autonomy argument. This is related to a particular view of the relationship between collective self-government and territory.
-
On National Self-Determination
Political Studies, 1997Co-Authors: Margaret MooreAbstract:This paper argues in favour of a conception of Self-Determination which involves the equal recognition of different National identities. It proceeds by, first, criticizing the dominant territorial (in contrast to National) conception of Self-Determination. It then addresses three main criticisms of a principle of National Self-Determination. These are (1) the argument from indeterminacy; (2) the argument from instability; (3) the problem of overlapping Nationalities.
Allen Lynch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Woodrow Wilson and the principle of ‘National Self-Determination’: a reconsideration
Review of International Studies, 2002Co-Authors: Allen LynchAbstract:Examination of Woodrow Wilson's concept of National Self-Determination in light of both Wilson's own intellectual development and the evolution of wartime strategy and diplomacy establishes that there was no prior consideration of ethnic or collective versus liberal or civic Nationalism in Wilson's idea of ‘National’ Self-Determination and that the actual enunciation and application of the principle was deeply affected by considerations of wartime strategy and diplomacy, above all to counter defeatist tendencies following Russia's withdrawal from the war as well as to induce a separate Austrian peace. Wilson thus understood that the idea could not be applied in an unqualified way, that considerations of National Self-Determination might in specific instances have to yield to compelling questions of security, diplomacy and economics. At the same time, Wilson was not well informed about many key aspects of nation and state in East-Central Europe. In the end, Wilson accepted many unsatisfactory compromises at the peace table based on the promise that the League and its version of collective security held for interNational security and justice. Ignorance, liberal myopia, and political incompetence thus have to be weighed against Wilson's considerable tactical pragmatism in prosecuting the war when arriving at a final judgement on Wilson and the legacy of National Self-Determination.