Eine ethische Beurteilung der Einschränkung der Freizügigkeit im Rahmen des Asylverfahrens in Deutschland auf Basis der Gerechtigkeitsansprüche von John Rawls

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-281
Author(s):  
Nadja Wolf
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Core ◽  
Central Aspect ◽  
Closed Society ◽  
Asylum Procedure

The restriction of freedom of movement within the German asylum procedure is legally controversial. My essay applies John Rawls’ Theory of Justice to this problem. This is appropriate because Rawls makes the principle of equal basic freedoms the central aspect of a just order and thus addresses the core aspect of the selective restriction of freedom of movement. However, this is also a challenge to show to what extent a theory Rawls wrote for a closed society can be applied to current issues that arise when these boundaries between inside and outside dissolve through migration.

scholarly journals A REVIEW ON RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-36
Author(s):  
M.Yasir Said ◽  
Yati Nurhayati
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Case Review ◽  
Core Concept ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Core ◽  
Theories Of Justice

Justice is an abstract idea and understanding the core concept of various types of justice will help scholars, lawyers and law enforcement to develop and use the theory for legislative drafting, judicial review, case review, in court defense, and legal research and writing. In this paper we discussed the essence of Rawls Justice, the implication and compared it to other theories of justice. Therefore this paper will focused on examining and reviewing John Rawls idea of Justice and how to implement it in society. The method used in this study is doctrinal legal research. The result of this study while we discussed that the three Rawls principles cannot be realized together because one principle collides with another. Rawls prioritizes that the principle of the equal liberty which is lexically maximized precedes the second and third principles. However we believe Justice as Fairness in action should not mean that there is equality but rather emphasizes the concept of balance for the law in providing justice.

The State’s Role in Ensuring Fair Income Distribution in Vietnam Today: Some Issues from the Theory of Justice as Fairness by John Rawls

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-195
Keyword(s):  
Income Distribution ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Stability ◽  
Social Equality ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Economic Philosophy ◽  
The Relationship

Fairness in income distribution is a factor that both motivates employees and contributes to maintaining social stability. In Vietnam, fair income distribution has been studied from various perspectives. In this article, through the analysis and synthesis of related documents and evidence, and from the perspective of economic philosophy, the author applies John Rawls’s Theory of Justice as Fairness to analyze some issues arising from the implementation of the state’s role in ensuring fair income distribution from 1986 to present. These are unifying the perception of fairness in income distribution; solving the relationship between economic efficiency and social equality; ensuring benefits for the least-privileged people in society; and controlling income. On that basis, the author makes some recommendations to enhance the state’s role in ensuring fair income distribution in Vietnam. Received 11thNovember 2019; Revised 10thApril 2020; Accepted 20th April 2020

Justice as Fairness: For Groups?

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon Van Dyke
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Homogeneous State ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls assumes that the principles of justice are for individuals in a society, and in general he assumes that the society is an ethnically homogeneous state. He thus follows the tradition associated with the dominant form of the social contract theory, which focuses on the individual and the state. His assumptions neglect the fact that almost all states are ethnically plural or heterogeneous, and that many of them confer special status and rights on ethnic groups as collective entities; for example, many of them confer special status and rights on indigenous groups, on groups disadvantaged by prior discrimination, and on minorities and other groups conceded a right to survive as distinct cultural entities. Status and rights for groups necessarily mean differentiation among individuals depending on their membership; and this in turn means that a theory of justice that focuses on the individual and neglects the group both fails to account for existing practices and fails to give guidance where the practices are at issue.

scholarly journals The Limits of Constructivism: Can Rawls Condemn Female Genital Mutilation?

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Koppelman
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
The Body ◽  
Political Life ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
Political Aspect ◽  
Genital Mutilation ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Face ◽  
Acceptable Theory ◽  
Female Genital

AbstractConstructivist political theory, championed most prominently by John Rawls, builds up a conception of justice from the minimal requirements of political life. It has two powerful attractions. It promises a kind of civic unity in the face of irresolvable differences about the good life. It also offers a foundation for human rights that is secure in the face of those same differences. The very parsimony that is its strength, however, deprives it of the resources to condemn some atrocities. Because it focuses on the political aspect of persons, it has difficulty cognizing violence done to those aspects of the person that are not political, preeminently the body. Constructivism thus can be only a part of an acceptable theory of justice.

La Idea de “Razón Publica” (y su Revisión) en el Último Rawls

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 5-31
Author(s):  
Fernando Aranda Fraga ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Public Good ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
Political Philosopher

In 1993 John Rawls published his main and longest work since 1971, where he had published his reknowned A Theory of Justice, book that made him famous as the greatest political philosopher of the century. We are referring to Political Liberalism, a summary of his writings of the 80’s and the first half of the 90’s, where he attempts to answer the critics of his intellectual partners, communitarian philosophers. One of the key topics in this book is the issue of “public reason”, whose object is nothing else than public good, and on which the principles and proceedings of justice are to be applied. The book was so important for the political philosophy of the time that in 1997 Rawls had to go through the 1993 edition, becoming this new one the last relevant writing published before the death of the Harvard philosopher in November 2002.

scholarly journals Interfering Busybody or Public-Minded Citizen? The Actio Popularis as a Model for Reform of the Rules of Standing in Constitutional Cases in Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Bede Xavier Harris ◽  
Elizabeth Pearl Harris
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Legal Action ◽  
Personal Interest ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
Taking Action ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
The Way

The interpretation given by the courts to the word ‘matter’ in sections 75 and 76 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, and the restrictive approach taken by the courts to what amounts to a sufficient interest in a matter, have led to the consequence that only litigants who can demonstrate a personal interest can bring an action to challenge a breach of the Constitution. This provides insufficient protection for constitutionalism because it means that the enforcement of the Constitution is contingent on there being a self-interested applicant who will bring an action – and, conversely, creates the risk that breaches of the Constitution will be allowed to stand in cases where those who do have standing find it in their political interests to refrain from taking action. With its focus on personal interest, the current approach excludes the altruistic applicant and runs counter to the theory that all citizens have a right to ensure that the Constitution is complied with. This paper examines the way in which the actio popularis of Roman law served the ideal of the engaged citizen by enabling citizens to initiate legal action to enforce public duties, and how modern equivalents of the actio in a number of jurisdictions achieve the same purpose. The paper draws on John Rawls’ theory of justice in arguing for reform of the law on standing in Australia so as to confer open standing in constitutional cases.

scholarly journals Rawls weltweit

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (121) ◽  
pp. 611-626
Author(s):  
Urs Müller-Plantenberg
Keyword(s):  
World Society ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The World ◽  
Closed Society

Rawls‘ Theory of justice is related to a „closed“ society. His theory is discussed under the conditions of globalization, where the world society is the only useful meaning of a closed society. But insofar societies are organised in different states, people have to regard the needs of „outsiders“, if they want to practice a minimum of justice.

scholarly journals Ideal and nonideal theory: A conceptual overview

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-173
Author(s):  
Milica Trifunovic
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Ideal Theory ◽  
Nonideal Theory ◽  
Law Of Peoples ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Conceptual Clarification ◽  
The Law ◽  
Conceptual Overview

The article gives conceptual clarification on a distinction between ideal and nonideal theory by analyzing John Rawls? theory as presented in his books ?A Theory of Justice? and ?The Law of Peoples.? The article tries to show the importance of ideal theory, while at the same time pointing out that the distinction, ideal and nonideal, needs further qualification. Further, the article also introduces the distinction of normative and descriptive into ideal and consequently nonideal theory. Through this four-fold distinction it is easier to establish the function of each theory and the separation of work-fields between philosophers, politicians and lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document