The “Perverse Result” of Disability Rights: Deregulating Care Workers’ Labor Unions in the Supreme Court

In Harris v. Quinn (2014), the United States Supreme Court used disability rights rhetoric of independence and control to argue that disabled people—not the State—are the real employers of in-home care workers. Consequently, the State cannot force care workers to pay labor union fees. Justice Alito’s majority decision interprets the employment contract as a capacity contract: a device that uses the recognition of equal cognitive capacity to obscure domination. Alito ignored the vulnerability of disabled people and in-home care workers to legitimize neoliberal cutbacks. In her dissent, Justice Kagan argued that disabled people, care workers, and the State forge multiple and iterative contracts. Using Kagan’s dissent, Charles Mills’s critique of ideal theory, and Susan Burgess and Christine Keating’s participatory social contract, I argue that an emancipatory contract must replace cognitive capacity as the condition of membership with the recognition of shared human vulnerability amid oppressive conditions.     

Totalitarian tendencies in drone strikes by states

Lethal drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles have been used to kill thousands of persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. Despite concerns aired by legal scholars that drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities violate international law, the US government contends that targeted killing is distinct from assassination, and has persisted in the practice to the point where it has become normalised as a standard operating procedure and taken up by other nations as well. Drone strikes have been championed by Western politicians as a “light footprint” approach to war, but the institutional apparatus of remote-control killing rests on totalitarian, not democratic principles. Secretive targeting criteria and procedures are withheld from citizens under a pretext of national security, resulting in a conflation of executive with judicial authority and an inversion of the burden of proof, undermining the very framework of universal human rights said to be championed by modern Western states. Moreover, lethal drones hovering above in the sky threaten all persons on the ground with the arbitrary termination of their lives and as such represent a form of terrorism no less than the suicide bombings of jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS.     

How Violence Breeds Violence: Some Utilitarian Considerations

Recent philosophical writing about war has focused upon just war theory, especially how best to construe the ius ad bellum and ius in bello tenets, and whether the distinction between combatants and non-combatants can be made in the modern world. Historically and politically, calls to war have often appealed to utilitarian considerations. In this article, I discuss important long-range consequences rarely mentioned in utilitarian defences of particular decisions to engage states in war. When consequences are weighed fully not only in the short term but with an eye to the future, bearing the destiny of all people in mind, it emerges that belligerent approaches to international conflict resolution will not maximise utility.