Collective Responsibility and the State

Stilz, Anna

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00360.x

Cited by 97 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This prompts a sharp distinction between democratic and nondemocratic countries. In democracies there is a sense, however attenuated and roundabout, in which individuals, as members of the citizenry, can be said to have chosen or at least collectively authorized (Miller 2007, 125-134;Stilz 2010) the national priorities. This is not true for nondemocracies.…”

Section: The Entitlement Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control

Duus-Otterström

2015

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most agree that large sums of money should be transferred to the most vulnerable countries in order to help them adapt to climate change. But how should that money be allocated within those countries? A popular and intuitively plausible answer, in line with the strong standing of the norm of ownership in development aid circles, is that this is for the recipient country to decide. The paper investigates the three most important types of ethical arguments for such 'recipient control': the epistemic argument, the entitlement argument, and the legitimacy argument. It is argued that there is a good case for recipient control in democratic countries, because such countries can be expected to act in the name of the people to whom adaptation finance is ultimately owed. However, the three arguments do not support, even if taken jointly, recipient control in nondemocratic countries. This is a significant result seeing as the majority of the most vulnerable countries are nondemocratic.

show abstract

Section: The Entitlement Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control

Duus-Otterström

2015

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For further illumination in this context see e.g. Parrish 2009;Stilz 2011. 36 Pasternak 2013Wall 2001.…”

Section:  Democratic Responsibility For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy for the Future: A Conceptual Framework to Assess Institutional Reform

Wallimann-Helmer¹,

Meyer²,

Burger³

2017

Jahrbuch Für Wissenschaft Und Ethik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There seem to be good reasons that democratic institutions must be reformed in order to minimize the danger of unsustainable policy decisions infringing upon duties of intergenerational justice. This is why there exist a number of different proposals of how to reform democratic states in order to foster their duties towards the future. However, the debate lacks a systematic assessment of these suggested reforms within a coherent theoretical and norma-tive framework. This paper aims at developing such a framework. We suggest two conceptual dimensions defining the spectrum of different justi-fiable institutional reforms: the relation between democracy and justice as one dimension and the conditions considered relevant for viewing democracies as responsible collective agents as the other. Depending on how we understand this relation and these conditions, it is possible to substantiate a set of types of institutional reforms that will promote democracies' capacities to comply with their responsibilities towards the future. There seem to be good reasons that democratic institutions must be reformed in order to minimize the danger of unsustainable policy decisions infringing upon duties of intergenerational justice. This is why there exist a number of different proposals of how to reform democratic states in order to foster their duties towards the future. However, the debate lacks a systematic assessment of these suggested reforms within a coherent theoretical and normative framework. This paper aims at developing such a framework.We suggest two conceptual dimensions defining the spectrum of different justifiable institutional reforms: the relation between democracy and justice as one dimension and the conditions considered relevant for viewing democracies as responsible collective agents as the other. Depending on how we understand this relation and these conditions, it is possible to substantiate a set of types of institutional reforms that will promote democracies' capacities to comply with their responsibilities towards the future.

show abstract

“…Using hypothetical consent, a state is considered legitimate if it governs in a manner that 'ideal' citizens would consent to in 'ideal' circumstances. A standard account is that such hypothetical contractors would seek to be bound by an authority that protects, or takes sufficient steps to try and protect, their human rights (Stilz 2011). On this view, then, we can say that a state is legitimate to the extent that it does, or takes sufficient steps to, properly protect individual rights.…”

Section: Caney Identifies Two Different Ways That the Idea That Statementioning

confidence: 99%

‘Humane intervention’: the international protection of animal rights

Cochrane

Cooke

2016

Journal of Global Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This paper explores the international implications of liberal theories which extend justice to sentient animals. In particular, it asks whether they imply that coercive military intervention in a state by external agents to prevent, halt or minimise violations of basic animal rights ('humane intervention') can be justified. In so doing, it employs Simon Caney's theory of humanitarian intervention and applies it to non-human animals. It argues that while humane intervention can be justified in principle, using Caney's assumptions, justifying any particular intervention on behalf of animals is much more difficult -and in present circumstances impossible. If these claims are correct, a number of important conclusions follow. First, all states lack legitimacy because of the horrors that they inflict upon animals. As a result of this, all states are thus prima facie liable to intervention by external agents. To remedy this situation, all states have the responsibility to massively transform their relationship with non-human animals, and to build international institutions to oversee the proper protection of their most basic rights.

show abstract

Collective Responsibility and the State

Cited by 97 publications

References 0 publications

Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control

Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control

Democracy for the Future: A Conceptual Framework to Assess Institutional Reform

‘Humane intervention’: the international protection of animal rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About