|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
153723
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) escalated its community building project significantly over the last decade, culminating in the launch of a reformed and substantially integrated ASEAN Community at the end of 2015. This article considers what might follow from this newly reformed and rhetorically people-focused version of ASEAN for matters of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression (SOGIE). In claiming to be people-oriented and people-centred, and by developing a regional rights regime, ASEAN opens itself to standards by which it can be measured and held to account. We critically review ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together, and consider civil society's response, focusing on the critique offered by the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus, the peak civil society organisation for ASEAN SOGIE matters. We focus on three themes: identity, visibility politics, and rights. We argue that while ASEAN falls short of its own rhetorical standards, these same standards support a politics which keeps rights in contestation, enabling civil society to push for accountability to international standards, and a more democratic politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
103671
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Chandran Kukathas has argued that 'the political pursuit of global justice is not a worthy goal, and that our aims in establishing international legal and political institutions should be more modest'. In this article I will examine Kukathas's argument, and argue in turn that he is mistaken to decry the efforts of those who press for global justice. Despite Kukathas's professed support for international law and cosmopolitanism, and his concern about global inequality and other injustices, he argues that we should forswear the use of political power and political reform to secure the former or address the latter. Instead, Kukathas points us towards the possibility of a future global convergence on moral standards, which, despite being belied by his focus on human diversity, he seems to view as a prerequisite for political activity towards global justice. Kukathas is mistaken in his arguments about the relationship between power and justice, and this leads him to false conclusions about the role that political reform and political institutions should play in consideration of global injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
153309
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|