Resource powers? Minerals,energy and the rise of the BRICS

The rise of new economic powers has seen increasing attention focused on the international role of the BRICS countries. Importantly, a common feature uniting the BRICS is that they are all resource-rich, and many analysts (and some BRICS governments) have argued that natural resources are one of the key factors propelling the rise of the group. This article explores the BRICS’ emerging status as ‘resource powers’, examining how resource wealth underpins their economic development and foreign policy strategies, and thus contributes to their growing influence in international affairs. It is argued that through the use of nationalistic mining and energy policies, the BRICS governments have exploited natural resources for both domestic economic and international diplomatic objectives. However, there are several challenges and emerging risks facing the BRICS’ resource strategies, which mean that resource wealth is making a positive – though inherently limited – contribution to the growing international status of the group.     

民间法现代运作及其影响法治的文化心理学分析——以三则典型案例为视角

即使在我们轰轰烈烈地进行着＂社会主义法治国家＂建设的情况下,民间法依然具有十分顽强的生命力,深深地影响着我国的法治建设。之所以人们仍然偏好以民间法作为自己的行为规范和解决纠纷冲突的参照,这固然有十分复杂的原因,但文化心理原因不能不说是最重要的。为了保证法治建设的顺利进行,我们必须在法律观念、法律制定、法律运作和法律适用结果等不同层面充分考虑承载深厚文化心理基础的民间法。     

论司马迁的文化使命与《史记》的着力点

记言、记事是中国史学的传统,为改变旧的史学秩序,司马谈提出了新的史学思想。在此基础上,司马迁以究天人之际,通古今之变,成一家之言为撰写《史记》提出了新的文化使命。司马迁爱奇的文化品质与其家学相关。汉文化的胜利是楚文化的胜利,楚人的浪漫气质既铸造了汉人的灵魂,同时也铸造了司马迁的浪漫情怀。社会经济的繁荣不但增强了汉王朝的国力,而且还助长了向外求索的豪气,给司马迁以深刻的影响。三次壮游为司马迁关注奇人奇事提供了依据,奇人奇事成为司马迁探讨兴衰之理的重要内容。秦汉人物是司马迁关心的重点对象,《史记》重点叙述这些人物的事迹,是为了更好地承担和阐释原始察终,见盛观衰、稽其成败兴坏之理的思想。     

How generous should egalitarians be?

Abstract

Lippert-Rasmussen has proposed a new version of luck egalitarianism: equality of concern. In this article, I argue that equality of concern is more generous than its two luck egalitarian rivals. That is, against equality of opportunity for welfare, it is more generous in that it recognises shortfalls in the satisfaction of one’s impersonal concerns as potentially inegalitarian. Against equality of resources, it is more generous in that it advocates more extensive compensation. I suggest that equality of concern’s generosity regarding impersonal concerns is justified but its generosity regarding compensation is not. Equality of resources, however, faces other problems, and so I argue that a hybrid of equality of concern and equality of resources would be the more attractive luck egalitarian view.