Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:6
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:5

Sadržaj

članak: 2 od 31  
Back povratak na rezultate
2019, vol. 53, br. 2, str. 422-444
Mi, narod i svet - problematični odnos američkog liberalizma i međunarodnog prava
Državni univerzitet u Portlandu, Mark O. Hetfilg Fakultet za upravu, Odsek za političke nauke, Portland, Oregon, SAD

e-adresatiphaine@pdx.edu
Sažetak
Uloga koju u društvu igra pravo od centralnog je značaja u svakoj verziji liberalne teorije. Koliko od da je teško obezbediti saglasnost u pogledu ontološke prirode i epistemoloških zahteva koje liberalna teorija postavlja pred zakonodavstvo, teškoće se uveliko umnožavaju kada liberalna teorija treba da se primeni na slučaj međunaronih odnosa. Situacija koja stvara najveći problem liberalnoj teoriji je kada pojam pravde treba primeniti van teritorijalnih granica moderne suverene države, pošto ne postoji međunarodni sudija koji bi nepristrasno i nesumnjivo razrešavao sporove. Suprotno idealima mnogih liberalnih mislilaca, sila i dalje uživa vrhovnu moć u odnosima između država, a to je kao realnost teško uskladiti s legalističkim liberalizmom kao teorijskom pozicijom.
Reference
Bass, J.G. (2000) Stay the hand of justice: The politics of war crimes tribunals. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Best, G. (1984) Nuremberg and after: The continuing history of war crimes and crimes against humanity. University of Reading Press
Bibas, S., Burke-White, W.W. International idealism meets domestic-criminal-procedure realism. Duke Law Journal, 59 (4), 637-704
Brdar, M., Jokic, A. (2011) Unjust honoris causa: Chronicle of a most peculiar academic dishonor. Kragujevac: Freedom Activities Centre
Charney, J.I. (1987) Disputes implicating the institutional credibility of the Court: problems of non-appearance, non-participation, and non-performance, in the International Court of Justice at a crossroads. u: Damrosch Lori F. [ur.] The International Court of Justice at a crossroads, Ardsley-New York, itd: Transnational Publishers, pp. 288-319
Dickson, T. (2015) Shklar's legalism and the liberal paradox. Constellations, 22(2): 188-198
Dossa, S. (1999) Liberal legalism: Law, culture and identity. European Legacy, 4(3): 73-87
Elshtain, B.J. (2008) Sovereignty: God, state and self. Basic Books
Falk, R. (1999) Telford Taylor and the legacy of Nuremberg. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Association, 37, 693-723
Goldsmith, J., Krasner, S. (2003) Pitfalls of international idealism. Dedalus, 132(1): 47-63
Hirsch, F. (2008) The Soviets at Nuremberg: International law, propaganda, and the making of the postwar order. American Historical Review, 113(3): 701-730
Jokic, A. (2004) Genocidalism. Journal of Ethics, 8(3): 251-297
Kahn, P.W. (2011) Political theology. New York: Columbia University Press
Kahn, P.W. (2003) Why the United States is so opposed. Crimes of War Magazine, December, http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html
Kahn, P.W. (2005) Putting liberalism in its place. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Kahn, P.W. (2010) Sacrificial nation. Utopian, 6 (March 29th); http://www.the-utopian.org/post/2340099709/sacrificial-nation
Kahn, P.W. (2000) Speaking law to power: Popular sovereignty, human rights, and the new international order. Chicago Journal of International Law, 1 (1), 1-18
Kahn, P.W. (2000) War powers and the millennium. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 34: 11-60
Kant, E. (1970) Perpetual Peace. u: H. Reiss [ur.] Kant's Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 93-130
Katzenstein, S., Snyder, J. (2009) Expediency of the angels. National Interest, March-April, pp. 58-65; http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/expediency-of-the-angels-3041
Krasner, S.D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Maogoto, N.J. (2004) War crimes and realpolitik: International justice from World War I to the 21st century. Lynne Rienner Pub, Mar
Mégret, F. (2002) The politics of international criminal justice. European Journal of International Law, 13(5): 1261-1284
Pal, R. (1953) International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Dissentient judgment of justice R.B. Pal. Calcutta: Sanyal and Co
Power, S. (2002) A problem from Hell: America in the age of genocide. New York: Basic Books
Richardson, H.S. (2002) Democratic autonomy: Public reasoning about the ends of policy. Oxford University Press
Rodman, K. (2006) Compromising justice: Why the Bush administration and the NGOs are both wrong about the ICC. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(1): 25-53
Sellars, K. (2010) Imperfect Justice at Nuremberg and Tokyo. European Journal of International Law, 21(4): 1085-1102
Shklar, J.N. (1964) Legalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Shklar, J.N. (1998) The work of Michael Walzer. u: S. Hoffmann [ur.] Political Thought and Political Thinkers, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 376-385
Simma, B. (1999) The impact of Nuremberg and Tokyo: Attempts at a comparison. u: A. Nisuke [ur.] Japan and international law: Past, present and future, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 59-84
Snyder, J., Vinjamuri, L. (2004) Trials and errors: Principle and pragmatism in strategies of international justice. International Security, 28(3): 5-44
Stilz, A. (2009) Liberal Loyalty. Princeton: University Press
Stone, D. (2002) Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
Walzer, M. (2007) Thinking politically. Yale University Press
 

O članku

jezik rada: engleski, srpski
vrsta rada: izvorni naučni članak
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg53-21704
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 09.09.2019.
metod recenzije: dvostruko anoniman
Creative Commons License 4.0