| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
093939
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Stints in power have been occasions to wipe out opponents, justice has meant vengeance, and egregious abuses have been legalized through immunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
168605
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The importance of the portrayal of reality in the press is well recognised, especially with respect to its capacity to affect public opinion. Articles on migration found in the Italian press with respect to four periods – the 2014 European Parliament elections; the end of the Mare Nostrum operation in the Mediterranean in 2014; the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016; and an eventless week in 2016 – revealed five main narratives: solidarity, responsibility, state-centred (Westphalian), instrumental and humanitarian. Each of them had its own specificities, while all were informed by Italy’s condition as a frontline state with regard to migration – the EU’s gatekeeper – and its paradoxical state of living in a ‘permanent/potential emergency’, constantly torn by its inability to reconcile security and humanitarian needs. An understanding of justice as non-domination was the main result of the analysis carried out, while there was little reference to migrants’ human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
115001
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
169031
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the approach in Turkey on hate speech by evaluating legal regulations, decisions and public responses. We argue that the Turkish case cultivates neither a lenient, nor a restrictive response to hate speech, because a strong nationalist bias seems to be at work in interpreting, penalizing or allowing hate speech. The peculiarity of the Turkish case stems from a prejudice that hate speech might be conducted only against the nation, unity of the state, or the principles of regime, rather than against vulnerable groups or identities. By focusing on the Hrant Dink case among others we try to demonstrate the most striking example of this prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
189089
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Principles of global political justice define how global society's governing institutional powers should be constituted, and by whom they should be exercised. Political justice seeks to establish political legitimacy under moral constraint—achieved through forms of governance function, political inclusion and political participation that respect the equal autonomy of all individuals within the global order as a whole. Over the last century, the dominant institutional model of political justice has been liberal internationalist. But erosion of the territorial and national boundaries of state-based political governance, accelerated by processes of ‘globalization’, has produced deepening legitimacy crises in the liberal international order. This article addresses this challenge by assessing what normative framework of political justice is best suited to the new global era of complex interdependence. Drawing on claims articulated by real-world global justice activists, it argues for a normative theoretical critique and reconstruction of the idea of pluralist legitimacy—replacing the familiar liberal internationalist model of pluralist legitimacy with a more complex variant of global pluralist legitimacy. This analysis contributes a cohesive conceptual framework for understanding the normative significance of diverse contemporary global legitimacy crises and activist justice claims that may otherwise appear disparate. In doing so, it illuminates the role played by justice ideals in guiding trajectories of change within the dynamic global political order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
067279
|
|
|