Online research in philosophy

RÉSUMÉ: Cet article examine la thèse, soutenue récemment par Terry Nardin, Kok-Chor Tan et Carla Bagnoli, selon laquelle l'intervention humanitaire devrait être considérée, non plus comme un devoir imparfait (un devoir d'assistance aux victimes de crimes contre l'humanite laissé à la discrétion des membres de la communauté internationale), mais, les conditions de permissivité étant satisfaites, comme un devoir parfait, c'est-à-dire une obligation inconditionnelle réclamée par la justice. Après avoir exposé les raisons pour lesquelles il convient de supporter une teIle position, (...) il met néanmoins en évidence certaines des difficultés qui s'y rattachent et tente de leur apporter des éléments de réponse.ABSTRACT: This article examines the claim recently put forward by Terry Nardin, Kok-Chor Tan, and Carla Bagnoli that humanitarian intervention ought to be conceived, not as an imperfect duty (a duty of assistance to the victims of crimes against humanity left to the discretion of the members of the international community), but-assuming that the permissibility conditions have been satisfied-as a perject duty (an unconditional obligation demanded by justice). After explaining why such a position can be considered as legitimate, it underlines some of its difficulties and provides the elements of a response in order to overcome them. (shrink)

The literature on multiculturalism currently splits parties into two camps : those favorable to the uniform treatment of cultural differences and those favorable to their differential treatment. Brian Barry, perhaps of the most influential present supporters of the first camp, has recently developed a severe criticism of the second approach. I intend in this paper to examine the scope and limits of Barry’s own uniform treatment approach. First, I will present the grounds Barry has for supporting it. Second, I will (...) examine one of its most important difficulties, that of excluding the particular treatment of cultural differences on the grounds that they are a matter of choice. (shrink)

In this paper the author examines the main features of Jürgen Habermas's cosmopolitan view of the global political order. He specifically examines the importance Habermas accords respectively to individual rights and the nationstate in such an order. After demonstrating that a global political order founded on the defence of individual human rights rather than the nation-state is an assumption that should be taken seriously, the author maintains that it would be undesirable to attribute only a secondary role to the nation-sate. (...) In the second part of the paper, he demonstrates that the nation-state has a positive role to play in the global era, and that those who predict its imminent demise will have to revisit their positions. (shrink)