The Democratic Legitimacy of Secession and the Demos Problem

The normative literature on secession has widely addressed the question of under which conditions the secession of a particular territory from a larger state might be regarded as justifiable. The idea of a normative justification of secession, however, remains ambiguous unless one distinguishes between the justice of secession and its legitimacy, a distinction that is now widely accepted in political philosophy. Much of the literature seems to have focused on the question about justice, while, in comparison, very little attention has been paid to the question of under which conditions secession can be regarded as democratically legitimate, as something explicitly different to the question of justice. This article addresses this second question. After some preliminary remarks, the article focuses on the main obstacle to develop a theory of democratic legitimacy of secessions, the so-called “demos problem.” Such problem, it is argued, has no categorical solution. This does not imply, however, that there is no democratic, legitimate way of redrawing our borders. Two strategies are proposed in this article to overcome the difficulty posed by the demos problem: an ideal strategy of consensus building and a non-ideal strategy of decision-making in the circumstances of disagreement.

Dilution Versus Unfair Advantage: Myths and Realities

Recent developments in the commercial marketplace have rendered the classification of trademarks as mere tools for remedying information asymmetry and assuring quality inaccurate. The value of trademarks as communicative tools has increased, and they are now being used by their owners to transmit images, value propositions and associations to consumers in order to drive purchases. However, while this new function of trademarks is a reality that can hardly be ignored, finding a convincing normative justification to legally support its integration into the trademark system remains problematic. Thus, building on the normative justifications advanced by the European Union (EU) to justify extended trademark protection, this paper evaluates the dilutive harm theory, including blurring and tarnishment, in addition to the misappropriation rationale. The paper reviews EU case law in this respect and sheds light on the current muddled state of law in dealing with extended trademark protection. Based on this analysis, the paper offers a workable framework which can be utilized by courts to address cases related to modern trademark functions. The paper concludes that the misappropriation rationale should be the principal ground for extending trademark protection, and that harm resulting from blurring and tarnishment should act as an ancillary for misappropriation claims.

The Expressive Value of Prosecuting Aged Defendants: A Rebuke of Ageism

A common normative justification for criminal trials is their expressive value. The prosecution of aged defendants, especially those with deteriorating health, seemingly presents new expressive challenges, where the value of judging and punishing past wrongs seems to conflict with sympathies for the elderly, the seeming futility of prosecuting individuals who are unlikely to serve much of a sentence if convicted, and the seeming cruelty of putting the frail/ill through lengthy and taxing trials. Drawing from philosophical literature on respect for persons and the morality of aged-based differential treatment, this paper argues that deciding not to prosecute would be a communicative disservice to the old—defendants, living victims and those left behind, and other aged individuals within a society—by treating the aged as less agentic or as if their past lives and past actions, admirable or detestable, should no longer be associated with them, nor praised or condemned.

La expresión del malestar en Chile: cultura, esfera pública y luchas sociales

This article develops the concepts of the public sphere, cultural malaise and social suffering in critical theory to think of social struggles as forms of social protest and political protest that occurred since October 2019 in Chile. The article explores the thesis on social discontent, which maintains that recent social struggles are a public expression of the unrest cultivated by processes of social modernization. According to the author, beyond the normative justification in reasons and arguments regarding the conditions of injustice that affect the agents in struggle, the social critique emerges from the social suffering that finds its place in the materiality of the discourses, images and bodies in the public sphere.

State Responsibility and Its Distributive Effect

This chapter presents the problem of the distributive effect and its treatment in existing literature. Starting with the idea that states are corporate moral agents, it suggests that states are morally responsible for their wrongdoings in two distinct senses: they can be blameworthy when they act wrongly, and they incur remedial responsibilities to address the wrong, including paying compensation to its victims. The chapter then contrasts two core views on how the state’s remedial responsibilities should be distributed among its members. The first view supports a proportional distribution, which tracks the state’s members’ blameworthy contributions to their state’s wrongdoings. While this approach caters to individualist intuitions about fairness, it is hard to implement in real-world states. The second approach is nonproportional, and lets the burden fall on the population at large. While easier to implement, it seems to lack a solid normative justification.

Adoption and implementation of automation technologies in organizations and community job-loss; corporate social responsibility managers justification mechanism among social actors

Purpose The purpose of this study is to ascertain how corporate social responsibility (CSR) managers are justifying the adoption of automation technologies in India, which is simultaneously creating job loss. Design/methodology/approach Indian firms to become and maintain superior levels of competitiveness in the marketplace had initiated the adoption, as well as usage of automation technologies such as robotics, additive manufacturing, machine learning and others. Such firm initiatives led to job loss in communities where the firm had a presence with its plants and offices. CSR managers primarily engaged with communities to undertake firm CSR initiatives. Job creation and its continuance have been a sacred component in this narrative. The adoption of automation technologies had altered this point of conversation. CSR managers had to justify both organizational actions from a firm perspective and reconcile the same to the community leaders. In this research, an exploratory study was conducted with a semi-structured open-ended questionnaire with 28 CSR experts. Data was collected through personal interviews and the data was content analysed based upon thematic content analysis. Findings The results indicated that CSR managers rationalized the adoption of automation technologies from a push-pull-mooring (PPM) perspective from a firm centric point of view. While for justification from a community (social) centric perspective, dominantly system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than deontological thinking (DT) and organizational economic egoism (OEE) rather than reputational egoism was applied. Research limitations/implications The study applies the theories of the PPM perspective from a firm centric point of view. While for community-based theoretical justification – system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than DT and OEE rather than reputational egoism was used. Practical implications This study finding would help CSR managers to undertake community activities while their firms are adopting and implementing automation technologies that are creating job loss in the very community their firms are serving. Mangers would get insights regarding the steps they should undertake to create harmony. Originality/value This is one of the first studies that delve regarding how CSR managers are justifying the adoption of automation technologies in India, which is simultaneously creating job loss. Theoretically, this study is novel because the study question is answered based upon the adoption of automation technologies from a PPM perspective from a firm centric point of view. While, for justification from a community (social) centric perspective, dominantly system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than DT and OEE rather than reputational egoism was applied.

The Islamic Perspective on The Improvement of Family Economy in The New Normal

This paper concerns with how to build a balance of rights and obligations of husband and wife in fulfilling the economic needs of the family, especially in unusual circumstances. The paper aims to give an overall picture of the authority of the husband and wife regarding the domestic and public rights in the family, as well as to deal with the issue on family economy during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study of this paper used the explorative-qualitative research methods, with data obtained by disseminating questionnaires and studying documents related to the responsibilities carried out by the husband and wife. An initial investigation was conducted by taking into account the provisions stipulated in the formal legality of positive law. The data were then analyzed by utilizing a descriptive phenomenological approach through the interpretation of the data obtained from observation, interview, documentation, and literature review. The findings of this study indicate that men and women have equal rights. The concept of nature show that there is normative justification between husband and wife, stating that the domestic responsibilities are closely related to the shared rights and obligations that are balanced within the family and society, and that both husband and wife have the same rights in taking legal actions. In this new normal era, to strengthen the economically weak family in the community requires joint co-operation between the husband and wife so that they can meet the needs of the family and create a harmonious family.

‘Good administration’ and the ‘Good’: The normative foundation for the protection of legitimate expectations

An idea that has gained significant traction in both case law and academic commentary as a justification for the protection of legitimate expectations is the concept of ‘good administration’. Going beyond the usual criticisms of the concept’s ambiguity, this article aims to highlight an additional set of difficulties with the invocation of ‘good administration’ as the normative justification for the doctrine. This article’s central argument is that the concept of ‘good’ invoked by the idea of ‘good administration’ inevitably falls to be substantiated by a particular conception of what the ‘good’ requires as a matter of political philosophy. And given that there are multiple competing conceptions of what ‘good’ law and government are, this magnifies the challenges of coming to a landing on the precise content of ‘good administration’. This article will illustrate that the various formulations of the normative foundation of the doctrine track closely with four different conceptions of ‘good’ law and government and will explore the implications of this diagnosis for the formulation of the proper justification for the protection of legitimate expectations.

Distinctively Political Normativity in Political Realism: Unattractive or Redundant

Political realists’ rejection of the so-called ‘ethics first’ approach of political moralists (mainstream liberals), has raised concerns about their own source of normativity. Some realists have responded to such concerns by theorizing a distinctively political normativity. According to this view, politics is seen as an autonomous, independent domain with its own evaluative standards. Therefore, it is in this source, rather than in some moral values ‘outside’ of this domain, that normative justification should be sought when theorizing justice, democracy, political legitimacy, and the like. For realists the question about a distinctively political normativity is important, because they take the fact that politics is a distinct affair to have severe consequences for both how to approach the subject matter as such and for which principles and values can be justified. Still, realists have had a hard time clarifying what this distinctively political normativity consists of and why, more precisely, it matters. The aim of this paper is to take some further steps in answering these questions. We argue that realists have the choice of committing themselves to one of two coherent notions of distinctively political normativity: one that is independent of moral values, where political normativity is taken to be a kind of instrumental normativity; another where the distinctness still retains a justificatory dependence on moral values. We argue that the former notion is unattractive since the costs of commitment will be too high (first claim), and that the latter notion is sound but redundant since no moralist would ever reject it (second claim). Furthermore, we end the paper by discussing what we see as the most fruitful way of approaching political and moral normativity in political theory.

The Sovereignty Conundrum

There are two ways of understanding the UK constitution. The classic Diceyean view is that sovereignty lies with the monarch-in-parliament alone. This is a fact, which requires no historical or normative justification. The other interpretation is that there are multiple sources of legitimate authority, including those embedded in the original union settlements, conventions, European Union law (before Brexit), European human rights law, normative principles and the devolution settlements. According to the first interpretation, devolution means that Westminster has lent power to the devolved institutions but can take it back at any time. According to the second, devolution is a constitutional measure, introducing federal principles into the union. In ordinary times, these conflicting interpretations can coexist but at times of crisis they come into the open.