Citizenship and the marginalities of migrants

How should we conceive and address the position of migrants in receiving states? The argument offered here presents an account of this position in terms of civic marginalization, that is, marginalization relative to the norm of the national citizen. Two dimensions of civic marginalization are distinguished. First, marginalization with respect to the status of national citizenship which is addressed in terms of the issue of whether specific kinds of migrants should be entitled to access to national citizenship, and what, if any, conditions governing such access are justifiable. Second, marginalization with respect to the rights and duties of the national citizen, which is addressed in terms of the rights to which specific types of migrant are entitled and the duties which can be demanded of them as well as the duties of the state towards them. Distinguishing these two dimensions also helps to bring into focus their interaction with one another by demonstrating that whether, and under what conditions, a migrant has access to national citizenship is normatively consequential for their rights and duties and the duties of the state towards them. The argument also offers methodological reflections on approaching this topic and draws attention to the strengths and limitations of its own methodological strategy.     

Gender and citizenship

She is the author of Media Messages in American Presidential Elections.     

Some remarks on the Gu\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{agu\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{ibhedabha\dot nga chapter in Udayana's ātmatattvaviveka

But under the requirement of philosophic consistency, and the impact of the perfectly valid reflection that experience is always my experience, and never part of some object independent of me, the world shrinks to the extension of my experience only, and I am left with bundles of my sensations. What are the natural consequences of such an epistemological sophistication? One plausible and natural reaction is what one might call the ‘Indian’ one. It runs roughly as follows: my experience of the world is, alas, only my experience. It is not ‘the real’. Moreover, the world disclosed in my experience is one of misery, precariousness, insecurity, which ends in old age and death and within which no secure, reliable, undeceptive goods can be found. The flux and precariousness which make it so unhappy a place, also make it most ill-suited to be an object of knowledge. — E. Gellner (1974: 114)     

Drug liability litigation: toward better dental care

Seattle attorney Ann Pearl Owen reviews the proliferation of litigation involving dental anesthesia and drug liability, ties it to trends in dentistry and pharmaceutical manufacturing, and finds a positive role for trial lawyers.     

Human securitization of water? A case study of the Indus Waters Basin

In the large and growing literature on hydropolitics, insecurity generated through water-related conflicts is most often conceptualized under a model of economic resource scarcity. Conflict is generally reduced to the question of who has water, who needs water and thus what cost, in economic, political or military terms, is appropriate to acquiring access to water. This article argues that while such analyses effectively chart the central resource-strategic relations involved in the geopolitics of water, they nonetheless disregard the deeper biological and cultural (that is social, ethnic, religious) significance of water in any water conflict. Such analyses, it claims, are too strongly linked to the traditional (as opposed to human) security discourse and therefore run the risk of misdiagnosing the complexity of the water resource challenge. To respond to this challenge the article will develop a human security ‘metrics’ for analysing water-based conflicts in human security terms. It will then compare an analysis of the Indus Waters Treaty based upon the human security approach with an analysis based on a ‘traditional’ security assessment of the treaty in order to assess the viability of the two approaches. Finally, the article will link the comparative assessments back to the water wars literature, drawing conclusions about its strengths and weaknesses and the possibility of a synthesis of traditional and human security in the analysis of water conflict.     

Does Feminist History have a future?

Abstract

Contemporary shifts in scholarship and institutional agendas, I argue, have created new sets of challenges for feminist history. While these do not undermine the paradigms of this scholarly endeavour, there has been an inevitable shift in how feminist history is now written, conceptualised and undertaken. A hallmark of dynamic and innovative scholarship is a capacity to evolve and respond to intellectual challenges and developments. There is much to be positive about in the future, as I believe feminist history at its best has not remained a passive or static body of knowledge, but continues to be reformulated and reconceptualised, but with this dynamism comes uncertainties which institutional change can bring. While I do not believe these are systemic enough to pose a challenge to the enterprise, I suggest they do create cause for wider discussion, especially about the place of the humanities more generally in the corporate university of the twenty-first century.