Two Conceptions of Sustainability

Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees describe the 'ecological footprint' (i.e. the ecological capacity, measured in hectares of biologically productive land, needed to supply a given person's consumption of natural resources and absorb their waste) as a conception of environmental sustainability, and have accumulated significant data to measure the footprints of nations, cities and even individual persons. Although the authors refrain from explicitly drawing normative inferences from their measurements, such implications lie not far beneath the surface of their work. Besides providing an empirical tool for assessing efforts to improve environmental performance, the footprint implies a normative ideal of global resource egalitarianism, once the conception is examined through the lens of contemporary political theory. In this article, I trace out the normative implications of ecological footprinting in comparison and contrast with those of carrying capacity, an alternative conception of sustainability which the footprint ought (or so I shall argue) to replace.     

Two Concepts of Violence

The aim of this review article is to explore some theoretical issues regarding the nature and scope of violence. There are two ways of thinking about violence: in terms of an act of force, or in terms of a violation. Those who define violence as an intentional act of excessive or destructive force endorse a narrow conception of violence (the Minimalist Conception of Violence or MCV), while those who see violence in terms of a violation of rights champion a broader conception of violence (the Comprehensive Conception of Violence or CCV). The strengths and weaknesses of both approaches will be assessed.     

A Tale of Two Disasters

The report to the U.S. president entitled The Federal Responseto Hurricane Katrina concludes that in the event of catastrophicdisasters the traditional intergovernmental response to disastershould give way to a more dominant role of the national government.This article considers whether it is possible to respond effectivelyto disaster in the traditional, intergovernmental mode by comparingthe response to Katrina with the response, which was widelyconsidered to be successful, to another disaster, in Grand Forks,North Dakota. The research suggests that an intergovernmentalresponse can be successful if those who respond to the disasterinteract in a collaborative network. The article considers whethersuch collaborative networks can be created and evaluates someof the recommendations from The Federal Response to HurricaneKatrina as potentially helping to create collaborative networks.