The paradoxes of the ‘everyday’: scrutinising the local turn in peace building

With the advent of the local turn in the mid-2000s, critical approaches have attempted to rethink peace building from the bottom up, placing local agents at the centre of the debate, declaring the end of top-down governance and affirming the fragmented, complex and plural nature of the social milieu. While local turn approaches have become popular in peace-building theory, this article invites the reader to question and problematise the local turn’s use of the concept of ‘everyday’, in order to explore paradoxes and contradictions that indicate the need to think more deeply about the impact of the local turn’s project of critique.     

Labour Left Out: Canada's Failure to Protect and Promote Collective Bargaining as a Human Right,by Roy J. Adams

The international labour movement's campaign to fortify the International Labour Organization's (ILO's) core labour standards by way of a World Trade Organization (WTO) social clause failed in the 1990s. Many purported beneficiaries of such a clause conceived of the proposal as a proverbial ‘terrorist’ rather than a ‘freedom fighter’. Reappraising debates in India and the USA, this paper understands the failure in terms of discursive struggles played out both within national contexts, and in the transnational domain. It is argued that previous attempts at unpacking the debate have employed too simplistic discursive schema and paid insufficient attention to its transnational dynamics. The international union movement can only advance the ILO–WTO linkage idea by acknowledging, coming to terms with and addressing the concerns of a pervasive counter-hegemonic discourse.     

Rethinking public policy in agriculture: lessons from history,distant and recent

This article reviews the histories of agricultural policy in 11 of today's developed countries between the late-nineteenth and the mid-twentieth century and in 10 developing and transition economies since the mid-twentieth century. After discussing the theoretical limitations of the prevailing orthodoxy, the article discusses the history of a wide range of agricultural policies concerning issues like land, knowledge (e.g., research, extension), credit, physical inputs (e.g., irrigation, transport, fertilizers, seeds), farm income stability (e.g., price stabilisation measures, insurances, trade protection), marketing, and processing. The article ends by discussing the policy lessons that may be learned from these historical experiences.     

国内关于国外生态学马克思主义的研究综述

生态学马克思主义是西方马克思主义的重要流派之一。近些年,随着生态环境问题越来越受到大家的关注,国内学者对国外生态学马克思主义主要从整体理论内容、主要代表人物、与马克思主义的关系三个方面做了很多有意义的研究和探索,形成了一个专门从事这方面研究的学术群,并且取得了很大的成果,为我们进一步从其他角度深入探讨国外生态学马克思主义提供了必要的理论依据和参考。     

On the Viability of the Concept of Staatswissenschaften

Staatswissenschaften is said to mean that there are certain specific fields of scholarly inquiry and higher education that relate primarily to the state, which is defined widely as structured human living-together. It is outlined why this is a concept viable for the future, particularly—but not only—in and for Europe.     

司法解释概念的认识论分析

人们在不同的论域中使用司法解释概念:权力说与手段说的司法解释、理性与非理性的司法解释、方法论与本体论的司法解释。从认识论角度看,不同的概念又具有共同之处。司法解释活动本身就是一种不同于反映性认识的解释性认识活动。司法解释体现了认识性活动与实践性活动的统一,法官司法判断的方法论与本体论的统一,理解、解释、论证、应用等阶段性活动的统一。     

论法律与理性

理性作为非权力话语 ,是法律人自我理解的前提 ,而自我理解又是法律人自我存在的依据。法的规律性认识可以通过运用人的本能的理性来获得 ,理性已不单是一个人的理性能力问题 ,而涉及主体相互间的语言沟通、交涉与理解的架构。我们对法的理性的理解 ,通常是从认知理性与道德或实践理性两种意义上来认识与讨论的。人们对法与理性的认识不是被动意义上的认识 ,而是一种解放性、扬弃性的认识。所以 ,法的理性还是一种批判能力。法的信仰不能超越理性。信仰一旦超越理性、为信仰服务 ,则将导致理性丧失生命。如果我们不能正视或无力回应当前理性所面临的各种各样的问题 ,那么 ,我们就无法切实地为我国法治建设提供充分而有效的理论支持。     

马克思对资本主义理性化的分析和批判

马克思作为影响后现代理论家对资本主义批判的无法绕过的重要人物,虽然他没有使用过“理性化”或“工具理性”等词语,但他的著作中也蕴涵着对资本主义理性化批判的丰富思想。本文拟从工具理性张扬及其导致的非理性后果,资本主义价值理性的发展和局限,理性化与对内奴役和对外侵略扩张在逻辑上的互补、一致,理性化导致非理性的根源及其解决等方面进行挖掘和梳理,从而与韦伯的理性化思想进行比较,以回应西方学者对马克思的批评．对当前的全球化形势有更清醒的理解。     

马克思现代性批判的三维探析

马克思现代性批判不是平滑的线性推进,而是在与社会历史实践相联系的三个理论层面上的有序推进。具体表现为:以异化劳动为尺度的现代性伦理批判;以分工为基础的现代性实证批判;以资本为核心的现代性本质批判。马克思市民社会批判的三重维度对当今资本主义批判具有重大的历史意义。     

论罗尔斯对功利主义的批判

罗尔斯对功利主义的批判是为了建立一种正义理论,以期代替居于统治地位的功利主义,他对功利主义的批评,涉及到功利主义的三个错误:即功利主义没有认真考虑在一个社会里如何分配利益和福利;功利主义没有认真地考虑人与人之间的差别;功利主义没有考虑欲望满足方面的特性.而这三个错误在罗尔斯看来是目的论和道义论之间的差异、是善与正义之间的差异、是效率原则与平等原则之间的差别.在<政治自由主义>中,他又联系社会多元论的事实,对功利主义的综合性学说进行批评,使他对功利主义的批判上升到一个新的阶段.罗尔斯对功利主义的批判给我们两点启示:如何正确处理效率原则和平等原则关系问题以及如何正确处理一元与多元的关系问题.