Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated wit...Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated with the assumptions of political realism or--at least for a short period Nazi imperialism. However, these differences seem to have taken a back seat since both thinkers have been adopted to legitimate the convictions of imperial liberalism. In contrast, this article will show that Schmitt and Kant have essentially more in common than generally assumed but do precisely argue against just war theory, humanitarian interventions, and a unipolar world. On the other hand, Kant＇s liberal and Schmitt＇s illiberal theory do not apply to the classical paradigms of intemational relations. Instead, Schmitt＇s Political Theology and Kant＇s Political Philosophy will be compared along with the antagonistic logic （and ethics） of political existentialism and a peaceful interdependence between states and nations. Considering the contemporary crisis of world order, it should be even plausible that the two dominating paradigms of future international relations might be formed by Kantian and Schmittian premises. Thus, the aim of this paper is not to match Kant and Schmitt once again with the usual approaches in international relations theory but to stretch its theoretical and conceptual spectrum by extracting the inventive contribution both thinkers made to important topics of IR.展开更多
Among various views on intergenerational justice, the most widely accepted theory invokes the rights of future generations. However, the rights theory seems to suffer from the non-identity problem addressed by Derek P...Among various views on intergenerational justice, the most widely accepted theory invokes the rights of future generations. However, the rights theory seems to suffer from the non-identity problem addressed by Derek Parfit. Some rights theorists attempt to circumvent the problem by examining causal links between actions taken by preceding generations and their effects on succeeding ones, Others try to do so by replacing future individual rights with such collective rights. This paper argues that both individualist and collectivist versions of the rights theory fail to supply grounds for intergenerational concern. The paper then offers an alternative theory that refines the idea of duty of fair play developed by John Rawls and applies it to the context of intergenerational relationships. To begin with, I identify several characteristics of posterity and explicate the adverse implications these characteristics have for other major theories of intertemporal concern than the rights theory. Next, different versions of the rights theory are closely examined from the perspective of the non-identity problem. Then, I offer an alternative argument for caring about future people, which is founded on the idea of intergenerational fair play. This paper concludes by noting that the fairness theory, unlike its rivals, does not face the non-identity problem or any other problems stemming from the features of posterity previously identified.展开更多
The life cycle of international norms is not actually a process of emergence, diffusion and internalization. As is shown by the logic of argumentation and the relational logic of process- oriented constructivism, the ...The life cycle of international norms is not actually a process of emergence, diffusion and internalization. As is shown by the logic of argumentation and the relational logic of process- oriented constructivism, the development of intemational norms may take another approach, one of origination, diffusion and remolding. Through dialogues on norms, discourse critique, self-remolding and other means, China has enriched the practice of remolding international human rights norms with a human rights theory centered on the right to survive and develop, thereby providing a new approach and new angle of vision that allows non-Western countries to break away from the monist approach of norm development.展开更多
文摘Concerning international relations theory, the work of Immanuel Kant was hitherto reflected in terms of the liberal paradigm, particularly of the democratic peace, whereas Carl Schmitt was predominantly associated with the assumptions of political realism or--at least for a short period Nazi imperialism. However, these differences seem to have taken a back seat since both thinkers have been adopted to legitimate the convictions of imperial liberalism. In contrast, this article will show that Schmitt and Kant have essentially more in common than generally assumed but do precisely argue against just war theory, humanitarian interventions, and a unipolar world. On the other hand, Kant＇s liberal and Schmitt＇s illiberal theory do not apply to the classical paradigms of intemational relations. Instead, Schmitt＇s Political Theology and Kant＇s Political Philosophy will be compared along with the antagonistic logic （and ethics） of political existentialism and a peaceful interdependence between states and nations. Considering the contemporary crisis of world order, it should be even plausible that the two dominating paradigms of future international relations might be formed by Kantian and Schmittian premises. Thus, the aim of this paper is not to match Kant and Schmitt once again with the usual approaches in international relations theory but to stretch its theoretical and conceptual spectrum by extracting the inventive contribution both thinkers made to important topics of IR.
文摘Among various views on intergenerational justice, the most widely accepted theory invokes the rights of future generations. However, the rights theory seems to suffer from the non-identity problem addressed by Derek Parfit. Some rights theorists attempt to circumvent the problem by examining causal links between actions taken by preceding generations and their effects on succeeding ones, Others try to do so by replacing future individual rights with such collective rights. This paper argues that both individualist and collectivist versions of the rights theory fail to supply grounds for intergenerational concern. The paper then offers an alternative theory that refines the idea of duty of fair play developed by John Rawls and applies it to the context of intergenerational relationships. To begin with, I identify several characteristics of posterity and explicate the adverse implications these characteristics have for other major theories of intertemporal concern than the rights theory. Next, different versions of the rights theory are closely examined from the perspective of the non-identity problem. Then, I offer an alternative argument for caring about future people, which is founded on the idea of intergenerational fair play. This paper concludes by noting that the fairness theory, unlike its rivals, does not face the non-identity problem or any other problems stemming from the features of posterity previously identified.
文摘The life cycle of international norms is not actually a process of emergence, diffusion and internalization. As is shown by the logic of argumentation and the relational logic of process- oriented constructivism, the development of intemational norms may take another approach, one of origination, diffusion and remolding. Through dialogues on norms, discourse critique, self-remolding and other means, China has enriched the practice of remolding international human rights norms with a human rights theory centered on the right to survive and develop, thereby providing a new approach and new angle of vision that allows non-Western countries to break away from the monist approach of norm development.
