Can Corrective Justice Ground Claims to Territory?

Meisels, Tamar

doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00167

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Marking as a form of ownership behavior does not only have to serve the function of claiming and justifying control but can also define group identity. In the intergroup literature, a conceptual distinction is made between two functions of in-group bias (see D. Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2002, 2003. The instrumental function consists of engaging group members to maintain or secure the position and standing of their group, whereas the identity confirmation function refers to behavior that affirms symbolically the distinctiveness and value of the group.…”

Section: Marking Collective Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nowadays, the term indigenous is used for more than 5,000 groups classified or considered to be the first, original inhabitants, such as the Inuit and the First Peoples in Canada, the Aboriginals in Australia, and the Maori in New Zealand (Gagné & Salaün, 2012; Hodgson, 2002). There are various examples of corrective justice in which indigenous groups successfully reclaim territory and rights based on the (alleged) fact of first possession and subsequent wrongful dispossession (Meisels, 2003; Roosens, 1998).…”

Section: Principles Of Collective Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collective Psychological Ownership and Intergroup Relations

Verkuyten

Martinović

2017

Perspect Psychol Sci

101

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas much social psychological research has studied the in-group and out-group implications of social categorization and collective identity (“we”), little research has examined the nature and relevance of collective psychological ownership (“ours”) for intergroup relations. We make a case for considering collective psychological ownership as an important source of intergroup tensions. We do so by integrating theory and research from various social sciences, and we draw out implications for future social psychological research on intergroup relations. We discuss collective psychological ownership in relation to the psychology of possessions, marking behavior, intergroup threats, outgroup exclusion, and in-group responsibility. We suggest that the social psychological processes discussed apply to a range of ownership objects (territory, buildings, cultural artifacts) and various intergroup settings, including international, national, and local contexts, and in organizations and communities. We conclude by providing directions for future research in different intergroup contexts.

show abstract

Section: Marking Collective Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Principles Of Collective Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Psychological Ownership and Intergroup Relations

Verkuyten

Martinović

2017

Perspect Psychol Sci

101

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The principal appeal, I think, is to the idea that people have a right to a place: as Hobbes and Walzer suggested, we are physical beings; we occupy space; and within that place we develop projects and relationships and pursue a general way of life to which we are typically attached. Some of these attachments are to the place (Meisels 2003a(Meisels , 2003bMiller 2007, 217), but some are to our projects and to the people who share the space with us, to our family and friends and the community which forms the background context in which we live our lives. This can be seen by considering the wrong of forcible expulsion.…”

Section: Moral Right Of Occupancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Place-related attachments and global distributive justice

Moore

2013

Journal of Global Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Civic nationalism, on the other hand, sees the national community as a community comprised of equal individuals whose membership is embodied in their civic rights. These individual bearers of rights are unified through their commitment to a common set of political practices and values (Meisels 2003:85). The community, and membership within it, is realized through the individuals’ choice to respect and comply with certain political principles (Habermas 2001:25).…”

Section: Space Borders and Identity: The National‐cosmopolitan Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Unity of Ethics and Practice: Interpreting Inclusion and Diversity

Kahn-Nisser¹

2011

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proceeds from the claim that the separation between normative political theory, political science, and politics is artificial, and that it should be challenged. In the first section, insights offered by Hans-Georg Gadamer and Charles Taylor, as well as more recent hermeneutic studies, will be brought in to show what we have to gain by incorporating normative theory and normative commitments into interpretive research programs. In the second section, I will interpret the normative commitments, with regard to inclusion, contained in the national-cosmopolitan debate, and the normative commitments, with regard to diversity, contained in the communitarian-multicultural debate. This section will close with the phrasing of ''thematic questions,'' which occupy each of the debates, and of the typical answers each approach gives to these questions. This thematic-questionsand-typical-answers framework can be used as an interpretive instrument in the study of existing communities. The last section will exemplify how such an interpretation may be conducted. I will put forth an interpretation of the European Parliament's debate on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. I will show how asking the text the thematic questions, looking for answers within it, and identifying their normative orientation can produce insights on the community. This article proceeds from the claim that the separation between normative political theory, political science, and politics is artificial, and that it should be challenged (Freeden 2005:14). One of the ways of challenging this separation is the incorporation of normative political theory into the scientific study of politics. The piece will suggest a way in which normative political theory may be incorporated into text (in its broadest meaning that refers to written texts as well as practice, behavior, events, etc.) interpretation. More specifically, I would like to show how normative theories of inclusion and diversity may help us understand how inclusive and diversified a given community is. The aim is to justify, construct, and illustrate a framework for social inquiry, which incorporates normative political theory, is ethically committed to inclusion and diversity, and is driven by the ambition to understand an empirical experience. The empirical experience at issue in this article is the European Parliament's decision to open International Studies Review (2011) 13, 387-410 accession negotiations with Turkey. However, the framework suggested here can be applied to other cases.It is not an uncommon claim that social inquiry should engage in strong evaluation. However, scarcely is this vague, abstract claim dressed in an actual research program, which brings together political action, political theory, and political inquiry. This article describes a research program that aims to surpass these divides through a systematic, structured, evaluative text interpretation.The first section will be devoted to the justification of the project. Insights offered by Hans-Georg ...

show abstract

Can Corrective Justice Ground Claims to Territory?

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Collective Psychological Ownership and Intergroup Relations

Collective Psychological Ownership and Intergroup Relations

Place-related attachments and global distributive justice

Toward a Unity of Ethics and Practice: Interpreting Inclusion and Diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About