A Positive,Communitarian Right to Security in the Age of Super-Terrorism

Post-9/11, and especially with the dramatic rise of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the author advocates a collective right to security. Plotting a course through state absolutism and liberalism, one finds communitarianism as a philosophy to support this right to security. The communitarian right to security is based on an interpretation of European human rights law, particularly positive duties of the state, to protect the rights to life of individuals from violations by non-state actors such as suspected terrorists. But for reasons of practical enforcement, limitations to the exercise of the right are also articulated.     

Open Immigration Policies and Liberal Discomfort

Consequentialist cosmopolitanism, Peter Higgins argues, enables closed border liberals to evade charges of moral hypocrisy despite their commitment to moral equality of individuals, once we recognize that open border arguments rely on cosmopolitanism’s individualism requirement, which ignores social realities relevant to a realistic assessment of the social consequences of an open immigration policy. Higgins is mistaken, however, in contending that cosmopolitan individualism entails attention to people only in their capacity as the abstract atomic individuals populating Charles Mills’ idealized social ontologies. Conversely, if cosmopolitan individualism does compel us to think of people as abstract atomic individuals, we are not obliged to think of them as relatively privileged. Under liberal cosmopolitanism, however, which prohibits state discrimination between citizens and non-citizens, open border policies are subject to no such consequentialist objections.

“善优先于权利”的社群主义政治伦理观

社群主义主张“善优先于权利”的政治伦理观。社群本位是哲学基础,善优先于权利是核心表达,公益政治学”是具体主张。它试图把对自由、正义等的理解纳入社群的传统文化和传统德性的语境中把握。但是,社群主义并未真正突破西方的自由传统,它本身存在的矛盾和缺陷以及导致的道德相对主义倾向也使社群主义无法摆脱道德评价上的缺失和不足。     

Humanity,military humanism and the new moral order

The post-WWII period has been characterized by an endless process of international humanitarian law-making, aimed at protecting people from their governments. After the collapse of communism, human rights have allegedly transcended their Eurocentrism and have become the first truly universal moral justification for the use of force. This essay explores the meaning and scope of humanity and questions the range of normative resources mobilized in its name. In view of these doubts, it argues that the recent combination of humanism and military force is the outward sign of an emerging moral world order, which is criticized from a number of pragmatic, principled and realist perspectives.     

少数人权利保护的法理述评

少数人权利保护的法理基础包括自由主义、社群主义、自由主义的多元文化主义、宪法爱国主义等。纵观少数人权利保护理论,尊重和认可少数人群体的文化价值、关照少数人在社会结构中的不利地位是共同特点。宪法爱国主义强调,在国家的族际关系整合过程中,要强化国家认同、公民身份认同,推动国家朝着立宪主义方向发展。对我国而言,尊崇宪法地位,以宪法精神凝聚各族群众,以宪法权威捍卫中华民族共同体基础,是少数民族权利保护的重要发展方向。     

从社群主义拯救罪错少年——恢复性少年司法及其社区参与

少年司法固有的福利模式和刑事模式均无法单一地解决少年犯罪的问题,因而受到学界的批评.同时,以恢复社会关系,促进罪错少年回归社会为目标的恢复性少年司法似乎正在成为少年司法的“第三条道路”.从社会变迁的角度看,社会、社群和社区的发展变化对少年司法制度的发展具有巨大的影响力.我国的城市化和市民社会正处于迅速发展的阶段,社会、社群、社区的发展驱动了具有恢复性少年司法因素的少年司法的发展,这体现了社群主义的价值底蕴.我国不少地方的司法机关进行了恢复性少年司法的探索,其各个阶段均具有社区参与的因素.从社会发展的趋势看,城市化和市民社会的发展使恢复性少年司法的社区参与具有广阔的前景.     

社群主义的自我观——兼评社群主义与新自由主义之争

为了理解社群主义与新自由主义的争论,有必要梳理社群主义代表人物的自我观,因为其自我观特别是自我与社群关系的观点处在它对新自由主义全方位批判的最基础的层面.泰勒要求超出原子主义的狭隘视界,探讨主体的本质以及人类自为的条件;他认为,实施强评价是人类自为的本质特征.麦金太尔揭示了启蒙主义对道德合理性论证的失败,提出了其叙事模式的自我观.桑德尔从其“构成性的自我观“出发,认为“占有性的主体“应是“我们“而不是“我“.在社群主义与新自由主义之争的评价问题上,伯内斯及晚近的泰勒都表现出了超越二者抽象对立的意向,可供我们借鉴.     

发展中的全球行政改革 --动因、理论变迁与经验启示

自二十世纪八、九十年代开始,由于全球化的挑战和传统公共行政模式的失灵,在西方发达国家继而蔓延全世界,出现了一股行政改革的浪潮.当代行政改革倡导公平、民主、社区主义和合作的理念,形成了新的公共管理模式.这一切对中国目前正在进行的国家行政改革具有着深刻的借鉴价值和理论内涵.     

A Pragmatist Critique of Liberal Epistemology

Abstract

This paper wrestles with the issue of the place of comprehensive beliefs within the public space. It tries to strike a middle path between the liberal ban on comprehensive beliefs and the anti-liberal claim that comprehensive beliefs should be given full pride of place in public deliberations. The article relies on arguments that are inspired by the pragmatist tradition. It starts locating the main cause of failures at articulating comprehensive beliefs and public reason in a central feature of liberal epistemology, namely the way it conceives public reason via a preliminary distinction between public and non-public beliefs. After criticizing this distinction, the article introduces a distinction between the normative practice of justification and the normative practice of adjudication as a more perspicuous way to establish the place that comprehensive beliefs should play within political forums. It then concludes showing that this approach provides a satisfying answer to the issue of the public role of comprehensive beliefs in a liberal democratic regime that is respectful of citizens’ thick identities while at the same time complying with the requirements of respect set by the liberal tradition.