This issue includes an essay by Richard Goldstone on global ethical standards for international judges; a book symposium on Michael Blake’s Justice and Foreign Policy, featuring contributions from Anna Stilz, Pablo Gilabert, Simon Caney, and Richard Miller, with a reply from Blake; a feature by Holly Lawford-Smith on ethical consumption and individual obligations; a review essay by David Runciman on democracy in the age of the Internet; and book reviews by Mark Rigstad, Kenneth Rodman, and George Rupp.
The Responsibility to Protect has become an established international norm associated with positive changes to the way that international society responds to genocide and mass atrocities. With only a few exceptions, states accept that they have committed to RtoP and agree on the principle’s core elements.
Must states comply with the strict standards of international law when they have sound consequentialist reasons for waging preventive wars to avoid future threats of harm?
Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed—and What It Means for Our Future by Dale Jamieson
Jamieson is interested in the real rather than the ideal world. The result is a book that is uncommonly accessible to nonspecialists, and will resonate even among those working in the trenches of climate policy.
Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy by Francis Fukuyama
Where did strong, adaptable, accountable states come from, and why do some countries have them and others do not? Fukuyama discusses three main paths to statehood, of which only one is sustainable in the long run.
Peter Singer argues that a significant portion of one’s income should go toward alleviating global poverty. But this is just a start.
The announcement of a comprehensive deal on Iran’s nuclear program is a significant achievement of international diplomacy. The predicament faced—and perhaps just resolved—by Obama is akin to a famous thought exercise in moral philosophy called the “trolley problem.”
In this, the final contribution to our online symposium, Ratner responds to critics of his book.
I maintain contra Ratner that peace should not be characterized as a component (or, in his language, a pillar) of justice. This dispute over the relationship between peace and justice matters, I contend, even if it rarely leads to different prescriptions.
In his book, Steven Ratner impressively integrates the concerns and perspectives of international lawyers with a philosophically compelling normative analysis, demonstrating by example the importance of such an integrated assessment.