The Experts below are selected from a list of 144 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael Mastanduno - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
beyond westphalia state sovereignty and international intervention
Foreign Affairs, 1995Co-Authors: Gene M Lyons, Michael MastandunoAbstract:Under the Westphalian system of international order, each nation is understood to be sovereign and its borders are seen as inviolable. "Beyond Westphalia" brings together a distinguished group of scholars to explore the question of whether recent political changes have shifted the balance between the sovereign Rights of States and the authority of the larger international community.
Gene M Lyons - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
beyond westphalia state sovereignty and international intervention
Foreign Affairs, 1995Co-Authors: Gene M Lyons, Michael MastandunoAbstract:Under the Westphalian system of international order, each nation is understood to be sovereign and its borders are seen as inviolable. "Beyond Westphalia" brings together a distinguished group of scholars to explore the question of whether recent political changes have shifted the balance between the sovereign Rights of States and the authority of the larger international community.
Steve Viner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Justice and Recognizing the Rights of States
International Criminal Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: Steve VinerAbstract:In this article, I reject Allen Buchanan's justice-based account of recognizing States as legitimate States in an international community of States. I argue that his account can fail to implement justice and that it does not properly consider the nature or importance of international law. After rejecting Buchanan's approach, I offer my account. My account calls for the unbundling of state Rights, and it allows each state right to be subject to moral and legal scrutiny. My unbundling account subjects the Rights of States to morally justified international laws, and it supports the conclusion that sovereignty and legitimacy should be seen in degrees. It also provides a framework for thinking about how, why and when, morally speaking, international institutions should have the power to grant or withhold legal Rights from States.
David Estlund - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LIBERAL ASSOCIATIONISM AND THE Rights of States
Social Philosophy and Policy, 2013Co-Authors: David EstlundAbstract:It is often argued that if one holds a liberal political philosophy about individual Rights against the state and the community, then one cannot consistently say that a state that violates those principles is owed the right of noninterference. How could the Rights of the collective trump the Rights of individuals in a liberal view? I believe that this debate calls for more reflection, on the relation between liberalism and individualism. I will sketch a conception of liberalism (“liberal associationism”) in which there is nothing awkward about saying that associations, as such, have some moral (not just, say, legal) Rights to noninterference. If liberal associationism is compelling in general terms then, if States (or some of them) can be shown to be associations in the relevant respects, then liberalism itself will supply the moral basis for a right of that kind, held by a state or people as such, to nonintervention.
-
Liberal Associationism and the Rights of States
2010Co-Authors: David EstlundAbstract:In political philosophy’s recent turn toward moral questions about the global order, one central controversy is about whether, and to what extent, States (or nations, or peoples) have the right to make their own decisions free from outside interference. Such a right would, according to almost anyone, be defeasible, but there are some reasons for wondering whether there is any such right at all. There might be practical reasons for staying out of States’ business in many cases, but not, on some views, because States have any right of noninterference. Furthermore, to think that States, as such, might hold such a right suggests a kind of collectivism that comes at the expense of the Rights of individuals — individuals who may be unjustly treated by their communities with no recourse to aid from the larger world. It is often argued that if you hold a liberal political philosophy about individual Rights against the state and the community then you cannot consistently say that a state that violates those principles is owed the right of noninterference. How could the Rights of the collective trump the Rights of individuals in a liberal view? I believe that this debate calls for more reflection on the relation between liberalism and individualism. I will sketch a conception of liberalism (“liberal associationism”) in which there is nothing awkward about saying that associations, as such, have some moral (not just, say, legal) Rights to noninterference. If liberal associationism is compelling in general terms then, if States (or some of them) can be shown to be associations in the relevant respects, then liberalism itself will supply the moral basis for a right, held by a state or people as such, to non-intervention.
Jie Jeanne Huang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Chasing Provenance: Protecting States with a Verifiable Link to Underwater Cultural Heritage
2012Co-Authors: Jie Jeanne HuangAbstract:This paper demonstrates the legal dilemmas for protecting Rights of States with a verifiable link to underwater cultural heritage (UCH) at doctrinal and practical levels and from international and domestic perspectives. The dilemmas include vague definitions, time-consuming procedures, weak remedies for violation, jurisdiction conflicts, and legal vacuum. It argues that domestic legislations are limited in offering protection to States with a verifiable link to UCH. More international cooperation is necessary. However, existing international conventions are insufficient in this aspect. Therefore, States are strongly encouraged to conclude bilateral or regional UCH treaties to protect themselves.
