Justice and the neutral state: A postmodern,feminist critique of lehning's account of justice

In this journal, Lehning (1990) defended the liberal view of political justice, arguing on behalf of a comprehensive principle of state neutrality as the linchpin of justice. By failing to deal with the postmodern challenge to the Enlightenment-liberalist conception of neutrality and by thoroughly ignoring the feminist understanding in which neutrality actually conceals a masculinist bias, Lehning's analysis is seriously undermined with respect to its possibility for understanding, let alone for accomplishing political justice.     

Welfare state, unemployment, and social justice: Judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed

This article reports judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed in The Netherlands. A large majority of the Dutch population is shown to support (i) the unemployed’s right to social security as well as their obligation to work, (ii) the principle that declining a job offering should be punished, and (iii) harsh sanctions in some specific cases of job refusal. An emphasis on the obligation to work results from conservative attitudes regarding both distributive justice (economic conservatism) and retributive justice (cultural conservatism). Furthermore, conservative attitudes regarding distributive justice derive from a privileged economic position (especially high income and infrequent experience of unemployment), whereas conservative attitudes regarding retributive justice result from a restricted cultural position (low level of education, technical rather than cultural type of education, and limited involvement in arts and culture).     

哈耶克自由主义理论之研究:方法与立场

在政治哲学谱系中占有重要位置的哈耶克自由主义理论是与二十世纪国际政治格局、尤其是与极权主义和计划经济给人类带来的灾难性影响有关。正是对二十世纪“各种形式的集体主义”政治情势和意识形态的敏锐启动了哈耶克自由主义思想的开展,而对政治情势和意识形态的学理诊断则是哈耶克所担负的哲学使命和知识职责。研究哈耶克自由主义理论的方法应是哲学式的,而评判立场则不能以我们置身其间的政治情势和意识形态作为择取的标准。     

Punishment,Liberalism, and Public Reason

The article argues for a conception of the justification of punishment that is compatible with a modern, politically liberal regime. Section I deals with what some have thought are the obvious social interests society has in punishing criminals, and tries to develop those possible interests somewhat sympathetically. Section II suggests that many of those reasons are not good ones if punishment is regarded (as it should be) from the perspective of political philosophy. Social responses to bad things happening to people cannot be grounded in controversial metaphysical views about what is good for people or what people deserve, but many reasons proffered for punishment are in fact grounded in such views. This constraint, accordingly, limits what individuals can expect in terms of a societal response to crime. Section III develops the appropriate reasons for punishment in a modern, liberal regime. Here the article relies on a—largely undefended—conception of public reason as the most plausible theory of what reasons for punishment are available to liberals. Section IV offers some closing thoughts on why people might adopt a politically liberal view about punishment as their own, personal view about how they should relate to others.     

Restorative justice: the indigenous justice system

Dramatically different beliefs about justice will produce dramatically different methods for achieving justice. The beliefs underlying the traditional Indigenous restorative justice systems, systems that dramatically differ from the European-based system practiced in the USA are presented. The discussion highlights the legacy of colonialism for tribal communities and the resilience and creative resistance that have continued to characterize the spirit and ingenuity of Indigenous peoples.     

Community,market, and state: Reflections on their potential for achieving economic justice

This paper investigates the potential of distinct societal decision-making and coordinating mechanisms as means of achieving economic justice. Within the enormous diversity of actual institutional arrangements that guide and shape whatever happens in economies, three overarching ideal types of mechanisms which separately or in combination enable mankind to cope with its economic challenge are discernible: communities, markets, and states. Each of these ideal types represents a different way in which economic decisions are made and the economic actions of members of society are coordinated. The specific question to be answered is how each of these mechanisms can contribute to the solution of the problem of economic justice in modern times.     

Citizenship and social justice

Discussions on the problems of the welfare state are increasingly framed in terms of citizenship rather than social justice. The popularity of the concept of citizenship raises the question of its implications for social justice theory and research. In this article it is argued that whereas the dominant approach in social justice is essentially individualistic, the concept of citizenship focuses rather on individuals as members of a societal community, from which both rights and obligations are derived. This focus on communal membership suggests three important topics for social justice theory and research: (i) the need to distinguish between a civic and a justice motive for human behavior, (ii) the need to specify the frame of reference respondents should use when they make their justice judgments, and (iii) the need to recognize the fact that justice judgments may result from both adhering to criteria of justice and considering the consequences of their application.     

Critical justice consciousness: Social injustice and the criminal justice system

In this essay I examine the importance of social justice to my identity and the changing interpretation of my “justice consciousness” resulting from changes in my work life. Drawing on my academic experience as well as my experience as an attorney, I describe the meaning that social justice has for me. I also examine the connections that I see between social injustice and the operation of the critical justice system.     

现代宪法的理论基础:自由主义抑或共和主义?

近代以来西方国家的宪法强调自由主义,以公民个人自由、权利的保障为核心来型塑各种制度。然而在现代社会,以自由主义为基础的宪法面临着困境,其需要从共和主义理论中汲取营养;中国宪法强调共和主义,需要用自由主义的核心价值弥补其不足。现代宪法的理论基础应该是自由主义与共和主义的有机结合。     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

Distributive justice: Theory and research

The concept of distributive justice and the theoretical and empirical work conducted on it during the past two decades are examined. Three questions provide the structure for this examination: (i) What are fundamental conceptual dimensions of distributive justice and the specific substantive issues to which they are related? (ii) What central questions has recent work on distributive justice addressed? and (iii) What are the most important emerging issues on which work in the near-term future should focus? Much of the theory and research examined in the paper is social psychological in nature, but reference is made to related work in related disciplines, particularly sociology and philosophy.     

欧盟宪法发展进程中的双重变奏——共和主义与自由主义的视角

欧盟宪法较之于民族国家的宪法的一个突出特征在于，欧盟宪法不是来自于一次政治决断，而是由多个连续性的决断构成，这就表现为欧盟宪法的发展或欧盟统合秩序的形成是一个由多种力量或因素参与其间的法律与政治进程，其中，共和主义与自由主义最为重要，从而欧盟宪法的发展进程也就体现为共和主义与自由主义的双重变奏。共和主义是欧盟宪法的灵魂与骨架，而自由主义在欧盟宪法发展之初是作为一种积极的力量而存在的。随着欧盟宪法的发展，因触及了各个民族国家的政治、社会发展模式及成员国人民的福利，自由主义则成为欧盟宪法发展中重要反对性力量所借助的思想资源，但是，源于“欧洲梦”的追求，共和主义较之于自由主义始终具有正当性与统摄性。欧盟宪法未来的发展，在一定意义上就取决于共和主义与自由主义之间的平衡。     

Perceptions of justice: Clientele evaluations of conflict adjustment by a utility regulatory agency

During the past 15 years social psychological research on justice has evaluated hypotheses about linkages among various personal and institutional attributes and variables like outcome favorability and perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in decision-making contexts. This article reexamines hypotheses and findings about procedural and distributive justice using data from the dispute adjustment process used by a state regulatory agency. This study differs from any previous studies of perceptions of justice in two respects. First, the study employs data about the perceptions ofboth sides of a disputing experience before a public authority. Second, rather than using multiple regression and path analysis as in many past studies, we illustrate the value of hierarchical log-linear analysis as an analytical technique. The data analyzed through loglinear analysis permit us to reconsider previous conclusions about the procedural neutrality and participation in dispute adjustment and the linkage of these concepts to the legitimacy of the political regime.     

被害人权利保护与恢复性司法

以恢复性司法为制度进路,追求刑事被害人权利保护这一事关实质正义实现的法治目标。对犯罪人的制裁更多地涉及法律的一般性与普遍性,因此偏重于追求形式正义;对被害人权利的弥补、修复、保护更多地涉及生活中实际、具体的事件之合理性与被害人个别处遇,因此偏重于追求实质正义。在传统刑事司法制度中,被害人的权利长期遭受不应有的忽视,而在欧美获得蓬勃发展的恢复性司法制度则针对不同案件、不同犯罪人和被害人开展了形式多样的恢复性司法计划,为我国惩治犯罪人、保护被害人与实现个案中的实质正义提供了良好的理论资源与制度进路。     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Frenemies: restorative justice and customary mechanisms of justice

More often than not, restorative justice is said to take roots in Indigenous practices. In fact, Indigenous and other traditional mechanisms of justice are often described as examples of restorative justice practices. In New Zealand, the government equates the Mãori approach to doing justice with family group conferences (FGC); a restorative justice mechanism which it claims embodies Mãori values and preferences. This article contends, however, that the type of ‘justice’ embodied in customary mechanisms, has often been taken out of context, and rendered universal and ahistorical through its representation as restorative justice mechanisms. Using fieldwork evidence, an analytical comparison between principles of restorative practices, New Zealand’s FGCs and the Mãori approach to justice was conducted. It concludes that this tendency to equate restorative justice with Indigenous approaches to law and justice is harmful and dangerous for it risks rendering the scholarship homogenizing and universalizing restorative justice, to the detriment of local preferences and practices.     

Procedural justice in mental health court: an investigation of the relation of perception of procedural justice to non-adherence and termination

Mental health courts (MHCs) operate on the principles of procedural justice (PJ). PJ highlights the importance of process over outcomes in encounters with authority. Subjective perceptions of having voice, being heard by decision-makers, and being treated with respect and concern by figures of authority are influential in assessment of fairness and in cooperation with decisions, regardless of favorability of the outcome. In this paper, we investigate MHC participant perception of PJ in interactions with MHC staff and the association between perceptions and recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests, and probation violations), treatment adherence, and MHC termination. Participants from two MHC programs (n?=?80) took part in this study. Results suggest that perception of PJ during interactions with the entire MHC team is significantly associated with program termination, but not with participant behaviors during MHC. Implications for MHC practitioners and researchers are discussed.     

Two paradigms of justice: criminal vs survivor justice in Africa

African countries continue to experience civil wars and other low-level violent conflicts. An issue relating to the intractable nature of postcolonial violence and how it should be resolved, is what is the potential for advancing contemporary peace processes and negotiated agreements through the notion of survivor justice? Two paradigms of justice have emerged in Africa in response to mass violence: criminal justice based on the example of the Nuremberg trials; and survivor justice based on political reform and exemplified by the cases of South Africa and Sudan. These two paradigms of justice are compared, with the context undergirding the debate and assumptions of each explored, and how this related to the issues of building peace in Africa. The guiding question is whether civil wars can be ended in courts. I argue that where a decisive military victory is untenable, survivor justice, that is political reform combined with judicial reconciliation, is the best way to resolve Africa’s conflicts. The example of South Africa’s political settlement and the reconciliation process in Rwanda offer examples of solutions for conflict transition to peace. Criminal justice processes – absent a decisive military victory – can act to delay and prevent peace and resolution.     

The Rwandan diaspora in Canada and the United States: reconciliation and justice

Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, many Rwandans fled and a modest diaspora was established throughout Canada and the United States. Diaspora are subject to many of the same concerns regarding justice and reconciliation as those who remain in Rwanda. This research focused primarily on how this diaspora attempted to achieve justice and reconciliation, if institutional mechanisms (gacaca) in Rwanda had a residual effect, and if they created any specific mechanism to facilitate justice and reconciliation among themselves. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with eight members of the diaspora in the United States and Canada between May 2015 and March 2016.

Interviews suggested that justice among the diaspora is inherently connected with justice in Rwanda, and participants felt that justice has not been achieved in either location. Reconciliation among the diaspora, while tied to reconciliation in Rwanda, may be its own construct. Interviews demarcated ‘thin’ reconciliation and ‘thick’ reconciliation, suggesting that ‘thin’ reconciliation exists among the diaspora, but that ‘thick’ reconciliation is rare. Discussion of gacaca was limited, as participants stated it did not address justice and reconciliation in Rwanda. Participants did not report any diaspora specific mechanism regarding attempts at justice and reconciliation.