In recent years, Western countries and NATO have repeatedly intervened in international conflicts using military means (e.g., Kosovo, Macedonia, and Afghanistan). The countries involved in these military operations have stated that these interventions did not serve strategic goals; instead, their prime purpose was to enforce human rights. Against this background the present paper aims to answer two main questions: First, how can attitudes toward such military interventions be measured? Second, how are these attitudes related to prosocial and antisocial personality dispositions? Two studies were conducted to address these questions. A first study with 275 university students from Germany enabled us to develop a short and reliable scale to measure attitudes toward the military enforcement of human right. A second study (N = 190) revealed that authoritarianism and the willingness to aggressively sanction the antisocial behavior of others were positively related to this attitude, while no significant relationship with prosocial dispositions emerged. Furthermore, it could be shown that a high concern for human rights only then was connected to a positive attitude toward their military enforcement if persons indicated to handle their daily conflicts in an aggressive manner.
This note suggests that Coase's The Problem of Social Cost has been read and interpreted too broadly to apply to all aspects of law. Drawing from Coase's own work, I show that Coase was narrowly focused on the economic analysis of negative externalities. This understanding of the paper precludes it from being used as a justification for the broad redistribution of property rights for the purpose of wealth maximization. This understanding of Coase's paper also defends his work against charges from those who object to making the determination of property rights secondary to the maximization of wealth. 相似文献
This article compares four historical periods in Afghanistan to better understand whether land reform in the post-2001 context will improve prospects for political order. Its central finding is that political order can be established without land reform provided that the state is able to establish and maintain coercive capacity. However, the cost of establishing political order mainly through coercion is very low levels of economic development. We also find that when land reform was implemented in periods of weak or declining coercive capacity, political disorder resulted from grievances unrelated to land issues. In addition, land reforms implemented in the context of highly centralized political institutions increased property insecurity. This suggests the importance of investing in coercive capacity alongside land reform in the current context but also that establishing inclusive political institutions prior to land reform will increase its chances of success. 相似文献
The conflicts in the formerly united Sudan have led to millions of deaths since the country's independence. The Naivasha Agreement was meant to end these wars. The January 2005 agreement foresaw a future where the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement and the Sudanese government would coexist within the framework of a united country. Subsequently, in 2011, however, the country was partitioned and the conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan have continued unabated. Interrogating the treaty texts and employing a case study approach and analysis of the economic and power dynamics within the region, this paper addresses the reason behind the failure of the comprehensive peace agreement and subsequent agreements intended to bring peace after partition. It becomes evident that the same dynamics that fed the partition of the country have helped bring conflict within its two successor states. In short, agreements are not sufficient to build peace. 相似文献
This article traces the origins of legalized discrimination, religious hatred, and systematic marginalization of a community of Malaysian Muslims – the Shias – perpetuated in the name of Islam. It demonstrates how a central government-derived fatwa (religious legal opinion) banning Shi’ism and the propagation of Shia teachings in the country since 1996 has been used to justify a range of human rights violations, not limited to the religious freedom of this minority group. Apart from Syariah legislation, the state has utilized this fatwa alongside other tools, including the religious bureaucracy and the media, to persecute Shia in Malaysia. Anti-Shia efforts are also supported and propagated by non-state Islamists who often work hand-in-hand with state actors. 相似文献