Immigration and Equal Ownership of the Earth

A number of philosophers argue that the earth's resources belong to everyone equally. Suppose this is true. Does this entail that people have a right to migrate across borders? This article considers two models of egalitarian ownership and assesses their implications for immigration policy. The first is Equal Division, under which each person is granted an equal share of the value of the earth's natural resources. The second is Common Ownership, under which every person has the right to use the earth's natural resources, but not the right to exclude others from them. While these models and their associated ideas have a long history within Western political thought, this article will examine them as they are presented by two sets of contemporary philosophers: Hillel Steiner, who defends Equal Division, and Michael Blake and Mathias Risse, who defend Common Ownership. In the case of each model, the article does three things. First, it considers the implications of the model for immigration policy. Second, it defends the model against objections from those defending immigration restrictions. Third, it contends that the model does not go far enough in its opposition to immigration restrictions. More specifically, the article argues that both Equal Division and Common Ownership, as presented by their proponents, fail to respect the claims of people whose interest in the land is not primarily economic. If the earth belongs to everyone equally, then people should not be prevented from pursuing important migratory goals such as family reunification, career development and education. The article concludes with a proposal for combining Equal Division with Common Ownership. Under this combined model, people would be free to migrate across international borders.     

A Pacifist Approach to Countering Extremism

ABSTRACT

How should a pacifist approach both extremism and counter-extremism? Through exploring definitions of extremism alongside pacifist scholarship, the paper argues that pacifism itself appears to be “extreme”, allowing extremism to be examined from an extreme perspective. But does counter-extremism engender peace? The paper identifies three dominant definitions of counter-extremism: a promotion of nonviolence, of liberal democratic values, and of tolerance. While counter-extremism appears to engender peace, the paper exposes the ways in which countering extremism promotes violence: a “nonviolence” which legitimises state violence; an ethnocentric homogenisation of liberal democratic values which alienates ethnic minorities, and a narrow sphere of tolerated pluralism which transforms non-hegemonic values into threats. The paper argues that to promote peace, pacifists must contribute to the reconceptualisation of extremism. The paper suggests that instead of depicting challenges to hegemonic values as “antagonisms” that threaten, agonistic spaces are required such that “extremism” need not be countered but encountered.     

Judges,Conflict, and the Past

Drawing upon interviews with senior judicial figures in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, this article considers the role of the judiciary in a political conflict. Using the socio‐legal literature on judicial performance and audience as well as transitional justice scholarship, the article argues that judges in Northern Ireland ‘performed’ to a number of ‘imagined’ audiences including Parliament, ‘the public', and their judicial peers – all of which shaped their view of the judicial role. In light of ongoing efforts to deal with the past in the jurisdiction, and the experiences of other transitional societies, the article argues that the judiciary can and should engage in a mature, reflexive and, where appropriate, self‐critical examination of the good and bad of their own institutional history during the conflict. It also argues that such a review of judicial performance requires an external audience in order to encourage the judiciary to see truth beyond the limits of legalism.     

Reforming regulatory relationships: The impact of medical revalidation on doctors,employers, and the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom

In 2012, medical regulation in the United Kingdom was fundamentally changed by the introduction of revalidation – a process by which all licensed doctors are required to regularly demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practice in their chosen field and are able to provide a good level of care. This paper examines the implications of revalidation on the structure, governance, and performance management of the medical profession, as well as how it has changed the relationships between the regulator, employer organizations, and the profession. We conducted semi‐structured interviews with clinical and non‐clinical staff from a range of healthcare organizations. Our research suggests that organizations have become intermediaries in the relationship between the General Medical Council and doctors, enacting regulatory processes on its behalf and extending regulatory surveillance and oversight at local level. Doctors’ autonomy has been reduced as they have become more accountable to and reliant on the organizations that employ them.     

A Maelstrom of Bodies and Emotions and Things: Spectatorial Encounters with the Trial

This paper explores spectatorial encounters with criminal trials. Particularly focusing on the 2018 work of Australian contemporary visual artist Julie Fragar that followed her watching murder trials in the Supreme Court of Queensland, it is argued that the artist as a legal outsider grapples with the inhumanity of the trial. This grappling can go in two directions. For some there is a need to bring the human back, to see the person beneath the mask of the role that they are performing, to connect the gothic horror of the trial back to a redeeming humanism. For others, and this is evident in Fragar, the horror of the inhumanity is visceral and overpowering, and the grotesque masque of judgment needs to be witnessed. Both perform a corrective and critique to the business as usual of processing, judging and stamping onto human lives that is legal insider’s performance in the criminal trial.