Access, Persistence, and Completion in the State Context

Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1505-1513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomas Veloz ◽  
Pablo Razeto

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN HOBDEN

Recent interest in the work of Historical Sociologists has concentrated on their renewed interest in the state. There is considerable regard for the historical account of state formation and development produced by writers such as Mann, Skocpol and Tilly. Surprisingly there has been less attention paid to another feature of their writings—the locating of states in an inter-state context. This article examines the international context envisioned by four historical sociologists. It argues that, although these writers have been successful at historicising state formations, this powerful account has not been matched with a historical account of international relations. If this project is to move forward, a complementary historical account of international contexts, or global structures, is required.


John Rawls ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 313-328
Author(s):  
Rekha Nath

This chapter canvasses the debate between John Rawls and his cosmopolitan critics over the demands of economic justice that arise beyond state borders. In particular, it examines the merits of three defenses of the position Rawls advances in The Law of Peoples that justice does not call for a cross-society egalitarian distributive principle: first, that such a principle would fail to hold states responsible for their economic position; second, that satisfying such a principle would not be feasible; and, third, that appeal to Rawls’s constructivist methodology can explain why the egalitarian principles he takes to be suited for the state context are not suited for the international context. The chapter concludes that upon careful examination, none of these defenses succeeds in plausibly motivating Rawls’s rejection of global egalitarianism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abel Dionizio Azeredo ◽  
Carlos Eduardo Soares Vaz

<p><strong>Criticism of the interference between powers in the light of luhmann's theory and the new law of abuse of authority</strong></p><p><strong>RESUMO</strong>: O presente artigo busca explicar, à luz da teoria sistêmica de Luhmann, as interações entre Direito e Política, especificamente na relação de poderes no sistema estatal tripartite, culminando na nova lei de abuso de autoridade. Utiliza de metodologia baseada na análise de estudos teóricos, qualitativos e descritivos, através de levantamento de material bibliográfico quanto à teoria sistêmica de Niklas Luhmann aplicada ao contexto estatal brasileiro atual, podendo ser enquadrado no eixo temático Estado, Governo e Sociedade. A pesquisa expõe terminologias dos estudos de Luhmann e seus significados, para compreensão da teoria sistêmica, interligando-se em dois caminhos: a diferenciação entre Direito e Política e seu acoplamento estrutural, apresentando crítica quanto à interferência entre os poderes, especialmente a constituição de um Tribunal Político atuando nas políticas públicas reservadas à Administração Pública do Poder Executivo e, por outro lado, a atuação legiferante dos Poderes Executivo e Legislativo na limitação de atuação do Poder Judiciário, especialmente na recente nova lei de abuso de autoridade.</p><p><strong>Palavras-chaves</strong>: Poderes estatais, direito e política, teoria sistêmica de Niklas Luhmann, tribunal político, lei de abuso de autoridade.</p><p><strong>Abstract:</strong> This article seeks to explain, in the view of Luhmann's systemic theory, the interactions between Law and Politics, specifically in the relationship of powers in the state tripartite system, culminating in the new law of abuse of authority. It uses a methodology based on the analysis of theoretical, qualitative and descriptive studies, through the survey of bibliographic material regarding niklas Luhmann's systemic theory applied to the current Brazilian state context, and can be framed in the state, government and society thematic axis. The research exposes terminologies of Luhmann's studies and its meanings, to understand systemic theory, interconnecting in two paths: the differentiation between Law and Politics and its structural coupling, presenting criticism about the interference between the powers, especially the constitution of a Political Court acting in public policies reserved for the Public Administration of the Executive Branch and, on the other hand, the legiferante action of the Executive and Legislative Branches in limiting the judiciary, especially in the recent new law of abuse of authority.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: State powers, law and politics, Niklas Luhmann systemic theory, political court, authority abuse law.</p><p><strong>Data da submissão: 03/11/2020</strong><br /><strong>Data da aceitação: 18/05/2020</strong></p>


Legitimacy ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 206-222
Author(s):  
Michael Sevel

This chapter examines Joseph Raz’s perfectionist liberalism, an alternative to liberal neutrality. Perfectionists, unlike neutralists, have done little to extend their view beyond the state to international law and institutions. It considers whether perfectionist liberalism can be a theory of legitimacy in this sphere. The discussion focuses on the neutralist worry that the moral pluralism and the conception of autonomy that are aspects of Raz’s view fail to respect moral diversity and the equal standing of citizens across state boundaries. In particular, it looks at Martha Nussbaum’s claim that Raz’s liberalism is less stable than John Rawls’s because it is incompatible with the moral views of many people. The chapter argues that this critique is not persuasive in the state context and, even if it were compelling, it would be less so in the suprastate context, due to well-known attributes of international institutions, including their limited jurisdiction and their relatively limited capacity to enforce norms and decisions.


2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léo Mariani

AbstractConceptualisations of the state as a reified entity fall short in the case of socialist Laos. Foreign commentators often imagine Lao political life through a discourse of state governance, yet the Lao themselves, in popular narratives, tend to emphasise their day to day interactions with state officials. In their everyday lives, the latter are treated as individuals with which it is possible to interact. This article explores the relations between the Lao people and their government officials, and how those relations have changed in recent history (mainly since 1975). Wedding receptions – vital events in Lao social life, where power is invoked through performance and representation – are taken as case studies for the analysis of authority and legitimacy in a socialist state context.


2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Fischlein ◽  
Andrea M. Feldpausch-Parker ◽  
Tarla R. Peterson ◽  
Jennie C. Stephens ◽  
Elizabeth J. Wilson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document