Egalitarian Justice and Religious Exemptions

2018 ◽  
pp. 109-126
Author(s):  
Cécile Laborde
Keyword(s):  
Ethnicities ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 146879682199986
Author(s):  
Dominic O'Sullivan

Colonial hegemony distinguishes relationships between the Australian state and Indigenous nations. British government was violently established and there was no accommodation with the Indigenous populations to allow settlement to proceed, as occurred through treaties in Canada and New Zealand. Indigenous arguments for treaties in Australia are, however, well established. Notwithstanding some Commonwealth and state and territory governments considering such agreements over the past 40 years, none have been concluded, and more modest forms of recognition have been alternatively proposed. In 2015, following extensive Indigenous advocacy, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition appointed a Referendum Council to consult on an amendment to the Commonwealth Constitution to recognise Australia’s first peoples. The recommendation of a Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission to oversee truth telling and agreements to allow ‘coming together after a struggle’ suggested a transformative ambition beyond the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition’s expectations. Makarrata does not stipulate treaties as an ideal form of agreement, but in raising the possibility, the Council added to the concept’s political momentum. This article discusses the place of treaties in contemporary Australian discourse, including treaty negotiations that are in progress in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. It uses examples from New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi to discuss their possibilities and limits in Australia. From these examples, two overarching arguments are made. Firstly, that treaties are potentially transformative, not because they may settle historical grievances, but because their required mutual recognition of each party’s enduring political standing means that they define ongoing, just terms of association. Secondly, the substantively different political arrangements that they presume mean that they are not merely instruments of egalitarian justice and are instead concerned with the distribution of political authority – Indigenous authority over their affairs and through a distinctive and culturally contextualised state citizenship.


Author(s):  
Darrel Moellendorf

This chapter notes that normative International Political Theory (IPT) developed over the past several decades in response to political, social, and economic events. These included the globalization of trade and finance, the increasing credibility of human-rights norms in foreign policy, and a growing awareness of a global ecological crisis. The emergence of normative IPT was not simply an effort to understand these events, but an attempt to offer accounts of what the responses to them should be. Normative IPT, then, was originally doubly responsive to the real world. Additionally, this chapter argues that there is a plausible account of global egalitarianism, which takes the justification of principles of egalitarian justice to depend crucially on features of the social and economic world. The account of global egalitarianism applies to the current circumstances in part because of features of those circumstances.


2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 439-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Loewe

Este texto procede à crítica dos intentos de justificação das demandas multiculturais que recorrem à igualdade de oportunidades argumentando que a disponibilidade de uma oportunidade está determinada pela pertença cultural. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Multiculturalismo. Justiça igualitária. Igualdade de oportunidades. Oportunidade. Responsabilidade. Custos. Preferências. Convicções culturais. ABSTRACT This text aims at the critique of attempts to justify multicultural claims that resort to the equality of opportunities, by arguing that the availability of an opportunity is determined by cultural belonging. KEY WORDS – Multiculturalism. Egalitarian justice. Equality of opportunities. Opportunity. Responsibility. Costs. Preferentes. Cultural convictions.


Author(s):  
Julie L. Rose

This chapter argues that free time—defined as the time not committed to meeting one's own or one's dependents' basic needs—is a resource to which citizens could plausibly have claims in a public and feasible liberal egalitarian justice. To develop the idea of free time as a resource, the chapter begins with the recognition that time itself is a resource. It then discusses three ways, drawn from time-use research, of defining free time: as time not engaged in typically necessary activities, as time not engaged in subjectively necessary activities, and as time not engaged in objectively necessary activities. It also considers how a formulation of free time might address issues of individual responsibility and asserts that the typically necessary and subjectively necessary definitions of free time are not appropriately understood as resources in the relevant sense. The chapter concludes by proposing a particular objective definition of free time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document