|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
115197
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The debates over global and historical justice much preoccupy contemporary political theory. Yet they have not been analyzed in tandem. And this, despite the fact that a number of theoretical frameworks, principal among them contractarianism and utilitarianism, configure arguments in both debates. In this essay, I show that such arguments, as advanced by either side in each of the two debates, all rest on a set of patterned assumptions about the nature of the self. Specifically, I argue, the debates over historical and global justice resemble each other as parallel contests over the physical, meta-social, metaphysical and social natures of the self. At their cores, the debates over historical and global justice thus display a common and symmetrical structure. I will also show that certain conceptions of the self underlying both the anti-historical justice and the anti-global justice positions are mutually inconsistent. Similar contradictions do not beset the pro-historical and pro-global justice positions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
187619
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the 1990s, Lithuania’s sovereignty politics was defined by its departure from the Soviet authoritarian regime and the transition to democracy, culminating in its integration into the European Union and NATO in 2004. Since Russia’s occupation of Crimea in 2014, Lithuania’s sovereignty has been threatened by Russia’s revisionist politics. Lithuania espoused strong support for Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion, voicing the most radical positions among the European allies accusing Russia of genocide and terrorism. This article discusses the genealogy of sovereignty-building in Lithuania since the collapse of the Soviet Union, illustrating how geopolitical threats shape sovereignty politics, at the center of which is the idea of freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
120845
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the changing ways in which Australians and Vietnamese remember and memorialize their involvement in the Vietnam War and how these processes intersect with notions of reconciliation and historical justice in postwar contexts. It uses the Battle of Long Tan of August 1966 as an entrée into these considerations and questions whether heritage-making and memorialization processes can facilitate the achievement of reconciliation between parties formerly in conflict. Not surprisingly, the Australian and Vietnamese veterans of the battle and the two states, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, have different motivations for wanting to remember Long Tan. On the Australian side, a sense that reconciliation and atonement are needed is often reflected in official government and veterans' statements about the war and Australia-Vietnam relations, in the memorialization process at Long Tan and in the involvement of Australian veterans groups in local economic development and community building in Vietnam. On the Vietnamese side, where the Vietnam War played out as a civil as well as an international war, efforts by those who actively supported the former Republic of Vietnam based in Saigon and among the overseas Vietnamese (Viet kieu) to memorialize their engagement in the conflict have been frustrated. The usefulness of the notion of seeking historical justice is therefore questioned in post-civil war situations where people are locked into fixed histories and are unprepared or unable to revisit and retell personal and collective memories and histories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|