下载
加入VIP
  • 专属下载特权
  • 现金文档折扣购买
  • VIP免费专区
  • 千万文档免费下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 *新书上架*冲突的道德:合理的异议和法律

*新书上架*冲突的道德:合理的异议和法律.pdf

*新书上架*冲突的道德:合理的异议和法律

九月虺
2009-07-29 0人阅读 举报 0 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《*新书上架*冲突的道德:合理的异议和法律pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域

THEMORALITYOFCONFLICTThisbookexplorestherelationshipbetweenthelawandpervasiveandpersistentreasonabledisagreementaboutjusticeItrevealsthecentralmoralfunctionandcreativeforceofreasonabledisagreementinandaboutthelawandshowswhyandhowlawyersandlegalphilosophersshouldtakereasonableconflictmoreseriouslyEventhoughthelawshouldberegardedastheprimarymodeofsettlementofourmoralconflicts,itcan,andshould,alsobetheobjectandtheforumoffurthermoralconflictsThereismoretotheruleoflawthanconvergenceanddeterminacyanditisimportantthereforetoquestiontheimportanceofagreementinlawandpoliticsByaddressingindetailissuespertainingtothenatureandsourcesofdisagreement,itsextentandsignificance,aswellastheprocedural,institutionalandsubstantiveresponsestodisagreementinthelawandtheirlegitimacy,thisbooksuggeststhevalueofacomprehensiveapproachtothinkingaboutconflict,whichuntilrecentlyhasbeenanalysedinacompartmentalisedwayDevelopingsuchaglobaltheoryofdisagreementinthelawshouldbereadinthecontextofthebroadereffortofreconstructingacompleteaccountofdemocraticlawmakinginpluralisticsocietiesThebookwillbeofvaluenotonlytolegalphilosophersandconstitutionaltheorists,butalsotopoliticalanddemocratictheorists,aswellastoallthoseinterestedinpublicdecisionmakinginconditionsofconflictTheMoralityofConflictReasonableDisagreementandtheLawSamanthaBessonOXFORDANDPORTLAND,OREGONPublishedinNorthAmerica(USandCanada)byHartPublishingcoInternationalSpecializedBookServicesNEHassaloStreetPortland,OregonUSA©SamanthaBesson,SamanthaBessonhasassertedherrightundertheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct,tobeidentifiedastheauthorofthisworkAllrightsreservedNopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymean,withoutthepriorpermissionofHartPublishing,orasexpresslypermittedbylaworunderthetermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographicrightsorganisationEnquiriesconcerningreproductionwhichmaynotbecoveredbytheaboveshouldbeaddressedtoHartPublishingattheaddressbelowHartPublishing,SaltersBoatyard,FollyBridge,AbingdonRd,Oxford,OXLBTelephone:()Fax:()email:mailhartpubcoukWEBSITE:http:wwwhartpubcoukBritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataDataAvailableISBN(hardback)TypesetbyDatamaticsTechnologiesLtd,inMinionptPrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyMPGBooks,Bodmin,Cornwall‘DemanderàunÉtatlibredesgenshardisdanslaguerreettimidesdanslapaix,c’estvouloirdeschosesimpossibleset,pourrèglegénérale,touteslesfoisqu’onverratoutlemondetranquilledansunÉtatquisedonnelenomderépublique,onpeutêtreassuréquelalibertén’yestpas’MONTESQUIEU,ConsidérationssurlescausesdelagrandeurdesRomainsetdeleurdécadence,(Oxford,VoltaireFoundation,)ixAcknowledgementsThisbookisconstitutedofaselectionofthematerialofthelargerHabilitationthesisIsubmittedattheUniversityofBern,SwitzerlandinMarchunderthetitleReasonableDisagreementandtheLawIamassedmanydebtswhilewritingitFirstofall,IwouldliketothankJörgPaulMüller,my‘Habilitationsbetreuer’attheUniversityofBern,forhavingtrustedmeandfollowedmepatientlyonthisunusualprojectatthecrossroadsbetweencontinentalandAngloAmericanlegalphilosophiesInNewYorkIwasfortunatetostartmyresearchunderthefriendlyadviceofJeremyWaldronHisbookLawandDisagreementconvincedmetodeepenthestudyoftheroleofdisagreementinthelawHiskindencouragementandconfidenceinmyworkhelpedmetoseethisprojectthroughtocompletionIalsowishtothankJosephRazforhissupportandforhavingmadeitpossibleformetospendmyfirstyearofpostdoctoralresearchatColumbiaandthenreturntoBalliolCollege,OxfordIowealottohisfriendshipandinvaluableadviceDuringmysecondyearatBalliolCollegein,IalsobenefitedfromnumerousstimulatingdiscussionswithTimothyEndicottIamgratefulforourdisagreementswhichhelpedmestructureandrefinemyargumentsIalsoowealottoNicosStavropoulos’generousandperspicaciouscommentsandcriticismsduringalltheyearsIspentatOxfordLastbutnotleast,IamgratefultoJohnGardnerforhisconstantencouragementandadviceovertheyearsIwouldliketothanktheinstitutionsandfoundationswhichhavemadethisprojectpossibleTheSwissNationalScienceFoundationsupportedtheprojectwithathreeyearpostdoctoralresearchscholarshipwhichenabledmetostartmyresearchinColumbiainandpursueitinOxfordfromtoIwouldalsoliketothanktheColumbiaLawSchoolandBalliolCollege,OxfordwhichprovedtobeperfectenvironmentsinwhichtopursuethisresearchLastbutnotleast,IamgratefultotheProvostandtheFellowsofTheQueen’sCollege,Oxford,whoelectedmetoathreeyearJuniorResearchFellowshipinandthusgavemetheopportunitytocompletemyresearchandworkonthemanuscriptofthisbookinidealconditionsTotheextentthatthebookreproducespreviouslypublishedworkinrevisedversions,IamgratefultopublishersandeditorsforpermissiontouseandrevisethatworkhereChapterfirstappearedinacollectionofessaysentitledDemocracy,CitizenshipandGlobalization,editedbyMarisaIglesiasandJordiFerrer(Berlin,DunckerHumblot,)Chapterwasfirstpublishedin()()OxfordJournalofLegalStudiesChapterwaspublishedinacollectioneditedbyLucWintgens,entitledTheTheoryandPracticeofLegislation:EssaysinLegisprudence(Aldershot,Ashgate,)Overtheyears,Ihavebenefitedfromthecommentsandcriticismsmadebycolleaguesandfriends,andalsobyparticipantsinseminarsandworkshops,especiallyinOxford,NewYork,Florence,BarcelonaandAmsterdamIamparticularlygratefultoSilvinaAlvarez,NicholasBamforth,NickBarber,TomCampbell,PaoloComanducci,PabloDeLora,JohnEekelaar,JordiFerrer,RobertoGargarella,ErnestoGarzonValdes,OliverGerstenberg,LeslieGreen,KlausGünther,TonyHonoré,JoshHolmes,JohnHyman,MarisaIglesiasVila,DoriKimel,DimitriosKyritsis,ColinJennings,CristinaLafont,GrantLamond,TimothyMacklem,GeorgioManiaci,JoseLuisMartiMarmol,JoseJuanMoreso,BronwenMorgan,MaribelNarvaez,DwightNewman,KalypsoNicolaïdis,OttoPfersmann,StephenPerry,DanielaPiana,ThomasPogge,OferRaban,MiriamRonzoni,WojciechSadurski,IritSametPorat,DanielSmilov,DaleSmith,GeorgSommeregger,JohnStantonIfe,JohnTasioulas,StephenTierney,DetlefvonDaniels,NeilWalker,LucWintgens,RuthZimmerlingandLorenzoZuccaNeedlesstosay,noneofthesepeopleareresponsibleforanyoftheerrors,omissions,orodditiesthatthebookundoubtedlystillcontainsFurtherthanksshouldgotomystudentsatboththeUniversitiesofOxfordandGenevaforconstantlychallengingthefoundationsoflegalphilosophyinapluralisticandglobalworldFinally,IwouldalsoliketothankRichardHartforhisearlyinterestinmywork,foragreeingtopublishabookbasedonamuchlongerHabilitationthesis,andalsoforhisgenerousandpatientlinguisticandstylisticadviceIthasbecomecleartomethatthisbookwouldneverhavebecomearealitywithouttheunconditionalsupportIreceivedfrommyparents,andmoregenerallywithoutmycaringfamilyasawholeIhavealsobenefitedfrommyfriends’encouragementandneverendingpatienceovertheyearsInparticular,IwouldliketothankMartinBurns,MarcAndréCôté,MartinEdwards,PaulFoote,AnneCatherineHahn,KirteeKapoor,MarisKöpckeTinture,MortenKringelbach,YannickLaurent,HélèneNeveuKringelbach,SallyNorris,MarieClaudePahud,MariannaPatané,ChristinePeters,RosarioSanchez,SushmaSharmaandStephenWalkerIamparticularlygratefultoThierryTheurillatforhavingbeensuchagreatfriendandsupportduringthewholelengthoftheprojectFinally,IwouldliketoexpressmyspecialgratitudetoPierreTercier,my‘Doktorvater’,forhisunfailingfriendshipeversincewefirstmetinSamanthaBessonLausanne,FebruaryviiiAcknowledgementsContentsAcknowledgementsviiIntroductionITheissueIIThesignificanceIIITheapproachIVThestructurePARTONE:THENATUREOFDISAGREEMENTTheNotionandTypesofDisagreementIntroductionIThenotionofdisagreementIIThetypesofdisagreementPoliticalmoraldisagreementThescopeofpoliticalmoralityaRawls’separationofpoliticalmoralityfromcomprehensivemoraldoctrinesiRawls’overlappingconsensusiiRawls’wayoutiiiArevisedRawlsianmodelofpoliticalmoraldisagreementbHabermas’separationofethicalpoliticaldiscoursefrommoraldebatesiTheearlyHabermasandtheproblemofpoliticalmoraldisagreementiiThelateHabermasandtheseparationofthemoralfromtheethicalIIIThefactofdisagreementandtheontologicalchallengeThechallengeThechallenge’sdefeasibilityLearningfromthechallengeConclusionTheSourcesofDisagreementandLegalIndeterminacyIntroductionIThesourcesofdisagreementVerballackofagreementConceptualdisagreementaBorderlinedisagreementbPivotaldisagreementNormativedisagreementaEpistemicdisagreementbMetaphysicaldisagreementiFromvalueconflicttometaphysicaldisagreementiiTypesofmetaphysicaldisagreementIIFrommoraldisagreementtolegalindeterminacyThedebateThenotionofindeterminacyaIndeterminacy,uncertaintyandobjectivitybFrommoraltolegalindeterminacycTypesoflegalindeterminacyTherelationshipbetweendisagreementandlegalindeterminacyConclusionTheEssentialContestabilityofNormativeConceptsIntroductionITheconceptof‘essentiallycontestableconcept’IIThesourcesofessentialcontestabilityVerballackofagreementConceptualdisagreementaBorderlinedisagreementbPivotaldisagreementNormativedisagreementIIIMinimalagreementinunderstandinganddisputableparadigmsMinimalagreementinunderstandingThedisputabilityofparadigmsSharedparadigmsandconceptualtruthConclusionTheReasonablenessofDisagreementIntroductionIThenotionofreasonablenessThreecaveatsxContentsFourdistinctionsaReasonablenessandrationalitybPublicreasonablenessandprivatereasonablenesscPersonbasedreasonablenessandcontentbasedreasonablenessiThedistinctioningeneraliiThepersonbasedaccountofreasonablenessiiiThecontentbasedaccountofreasonablenessdActualistreasonablenessandprobabilisticreasonablenessThreeillustrationsaRawls’partisanconceptionofpublicreasonbHabermas’transcendentalconceptionofreasonablenesscGutmannandThompson’sreciprocalconceptionofpublicreasonIIThesignificanceofreasonThevalueofthereasonableaApragmaticlegitimation:stabilityandcooperationbAnepistemologicallegitimation:thesearchfortruthcAmorallegitimation:mutualjustificationiIndividualjustificationiiPublicjustificationThelimitsofthereasonableIIITheburdensofreasonIVTheimplicationsofreasonabledisagreementThechallengeofinternalscepticismFromtheinconclusivenessofpublicreasontoalternativemodesofpoliticallegitimationThebenefitsofreasonablepluralismandthelivingruleoflawConclusionPARTTWO:THESIGNIFICANCEOFDISAGREEMENTTheStateofNatureFictionIntroductionIThefictionasargumentGeneralSettingthescene:thestateofnatureaHobbes’stateofnaturebRousseau’sstateofnaturecKant’sstateofnaturedHume’sstateofnatureIntroducingtheproblem:theextentofdisagreementContentsxiaHobbes’accountoftheextentofdisagreementbRousseau’saccountoftheextentofdisagreementcKant’saccountoftheextentofdisagreementdHume’saccountoftheextentofdisagreementJudgingthesituation:thesignificanceofdisagreementaHobbes’accountofthesignificanceofdisagreementbRousseau’saccountofthesignificanceofdisagreementcKant’saccountofthesignificanceofdisagreementdHume’saccountofthesignificanceofdisagreementIISomenonfictionalobjectionsFromtheconceptualtruthtothefactofdisagreementSomeempiricalobjectionsConclusionDisagreementasaSourceofCoordinationProblemsIntroductionICoordinationproblemsandwhyweneedtosolvethemTheneedforcoordinationaThedesirabilityofcoordinationbThepossibilityofcoordinationCoordinationproblemsaGeneralconsiderationsofcollectiveactionbThePrisoner’sDilemmacPurecoordinationproblemsdPartialconflictcoordinationproblemsTheresolutionofcoordinationproblemsaTheneedtosolvecoordinationproblemsandthemoralcasefordeterminatiobFromtheneedtocoordinatetothereasonstosolvecoordinationproblemscConsciouscoordinationandthereasonablenessoftheoptionsIILawasawayofcontributingtosecuringcoordinationOnlegalcoordinationingeneralaFromnaturaltocollectivecoordinationbFrominformaltoformalcoordinationFirstlevelcoordination:theconstitutionofalegalorderaTheargumentbThechallengesiFromconvergentbehaviourtoruleiiCoordinationandpivotaldisagreementSecondlevelcoordination:theconstitutionoflawmakingproceduresxiiContentsThirdlevelcoordination:theconstitutionofconcretelawsIIICoordinationaslaw’smainfunctionTheargumentThechallengesaTheabsenceofallencompassingconcertedactionbTheabsenceofallencompassingneedforcooperationConclusionPARTTHREE:THERESPONSETODISAGREEMENTSECTIONONE:LAWMAKINGPROCEDURESDeliberative‘VotingEthics’IntroductionIThelegitimacyofprocedurallegitimacyTheissueoflegitimacyThedemocraticparadoxEpistemicpopulismorsoftsubstantivismSubstantiveproceduralismaPuredecisionismbSubstantivelylegitimateproceduralismiTheminimalsubstantivelegitimationofprocedurallegitimacyiiSubstantivecumcontingentproceduralismIIThejustificationofdemocraticdeliberationThejustificationofdemocraticparticipationThejustificationofdeliberationIIIDeliberationanddisagreementActualreasonableagreementquaregulativeidealofdeliberationDeliberativedisagreementPotentialreasonableagreementquainternallogicofdeliberationIVTheinescapabilityofvotingTheneedforclosureVariousproposalsofmodesofclosureaNoninstitutionalmodesofcollectivechoicebFrominstitutionaldeliberation,throughaccommodation,tovoteVVotingafterdeliberatingAdeliberativejustificationofvotingThemisgivingsofthedeliberativeoppositiontoaggregativeproceduresContentsxiiiVIDeliberative‘votingethics’VotingethicsfromwithinThedeliberativeethicsofvoting:minimaldecisivenessThedeliberativeethicsofmajorityrule:maximaldecisivenessaFromunanimity,throughminorityrule,tomajorityrulebTheargumentofmaximaldecisivenessConclusionFourArgumentsagainstCompromisingJusticeInternallyIntroductionITheconceptofcompromiseAfewdistinctionsAcaveat:thedisagreeablenatureofcompromiseIIThejustificationofcompromiseCompromiseofinterestsCompromiseofprinciplesaGeneralbMultiprinciplecompromisecSingleprinciplecompromiseIIIThelimitationsofcompromiseInefficiencyPotentialinjusticeConceptattributionPoliticalintegrityIVDemocracyasafaircompromiseDemocracyascompromisequaprocessDemocracyandfurthercompromisesquaoutcomeConclusionSECTIONTWO:LAWMAKINGINSTITUTIONSConstitutionalRightsQuaLegislativePrecommitmentIntroductionIAfewdefinitionsIITheprecommitmentmodelofconstitutionalconstraintsElster’smodelofindividualprecommitmentTheconstitutionalanalogyaTheprincipleofanalogybTheanalogyappliedIIIThelimitationsoftheprecommitmentconceptionofconstitutionalconstraintsGeneralxivContentsTheprecommittingsubject:UlyssesversusamajorityofthevotingpopulationaUlyssesversusacomplexcollectiveentity,thepeoplebUlyssesversustheintergenerationalpeopleTheobjectoftheprecommitment:thecharmofthesirensversusrightsmisconceptionsThetargetofprecommitment:individualweaknessofwillversusreasonabledisagreementaPoliticalakrasiaasprecommitmentmaintargetbAfewlimitations:reasonabledisagreementversuscollectiveakrasiaiThelimitationsiiAssessingtherisksiiiTheparadoxofconstitutionalprecommitmentTheimplementationoftheprecommitment:Ulysses’crewquaexternalenforcerversusthepeopleTheoperationoftheprecommitment:keepingsomeonetiedversusjudgingrightsviolationsImplicationsfortheprecommitmentmodelofconstitutionalrightsIVAcounterobjection:theconstitutionalisationofdemocracyDemocracyenablinganddemocracyconstitutiveprecommitmentAfewlimitations:constitutivepredecisionversusconstitutionalprecommitmentImplicationsfortheprecommitmentmodelofconstitutionalrightsVTheprecommitmentmodelrevisitedThedifferentlevelsofentrenchmentmodelaThedifferentrightsentrenchedbThedifferenttiersofentrenchmentiFundamentalcivilandnonpoliticalrightsiiConstitutiveproceduralrulesanddemocraticrightsAfewbuiltincorrectivesaGeneralbFlexibleamendabilitycEssentiallycontestableconceptsdThepeople’slastwordinconstitutionalinterpretationConclusionParticipationandtheParadoxofDemocraticRepresentationIntroductionContentsxvIThecontoursofdemocraticrepresentationNotionandscopeFiveconstitutiveelementsaWhoisrepresentedbWhotherepresentativesarecHowtherepresentativesarechosendWhattherepresentativesrepresenteHowtherepresentativesrepresentIIThechallengeofdisagreementThechallengeaWhydisagreementshouldberepresentedbHowdisagreementshouldberepresentedAcommonresponse:descriptivegrouprepresentationaFrom

用户评价(0)

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

评分:

/49

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利