Justice

When seeking drug reform we should avoid the deeply entrenched anti-drug narratives that have dominated drug policy debate. These narratives are often rooted in fallacy, distortion and sweeping generalisations, whereas, reform must maintain integrity and stay firmly rooted in reason, rationale, science and evidence. We need to be clear, we don't have a global drug problem - we have a global drug policy problem, and the cause of the problem isn't gangsters - it's governments.

Health care is ubiquitous in the lives of industrialized people. Yet, every medical development, technique, and procedure impact the environment. Green Bioethics synthesizes environmental ethics and biomedical ethics, thus creating an interdisciplinary approach to sustainable health care. Notably, Green Bioethics addresses, not the structure of environmental sustainability in health care institutions, but the sustainability of individual health care offerings.

Green Bioethics parallels traditional biomedical ethics by providing four principles for ethical guidance. Through these four principles, Green Bioethics presents a coherent framework for evaluating the sustainability of medical developments, techniques, and procedures. The principles of Green Bioethics are:
- Distributive Justice (Allocate Basic Medical Resources before Special Interest Access)
- Resource Conservation (Provide Health Care Needs before Health Care Wants)
- Simplicity (Reduce Dependence on Medical Interventions)
- Ethical Economics (Humanistic Health Care Instead of Financial Profit)

The future of our world may very well depend on how effectively we halt ecological destruction and conserve our resources. The principles of Green Bioethics, in tandem with the concrete examples given in this book, will support sustainability in health care.

This Court should not follow the Panel’s suggestion that Petersons’ challenge to personal jurisdiction be waived because no party made this argument to either this Court or the Court of Appeals. Under our system of government, the role of courts is not to advance arguments in
support of any of the adverse parties. United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)(“In our adversarial system of adjudication, . . . in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal . . ., we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id. at 140 S. Ct at 1579 (quotation marks omitted).) Cf. English v. Buss, supra., at **11-14 (unpublished) (Held one judge could review the order of another judge where lack of procedural due process was apparent.) See also RAP 2.5.
Had Division One panel’s waiver argument been made by the opposing party and its counsel the Petersons, through their counsel, would have been able to demonstrate this position should be rejected because the record reflects the Petersons never agreed to waive their right to adequate, non-fraudulent service of process, which includes being “duly cited to appear.” As to this right, see e.g., Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 418 (1897); Garrison v. Cheeney, 1 Wash. Terr, 489, 503 (1875); Galpin v. Page, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 350, 368-69 (1873) (“It is a rule, old as the law, . . . , that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard.”)

As to the law that waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, see State v. Herron, 183 Wn.2d 737, 743-45, 356 P.3d 709, 712-13 (2015). In fact, a court must “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental rights.” State v. Frawley, 181 Wn.2d 452, 461, 334 P.3d 1022 (2014). Under these constitutional principles there was no waiver of the Petersons’ right, asserted in their answer and other pleadings, not to be hailed into
a court that had no personal jurisdiction over them.

Another reason that failure to file a specific motion to dismiss for a lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to KCLR 7(b)(5) was not required is because CR 12(h)(1) specifically provides “A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived . . . (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.” Here, these personal jurisdiction defenses were clearly asserted in the Petersons’ Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Response to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment. And even if it was the intent of this superior court to require persons to file motions to dismiss under these circumstances, a superior court does not have the authority to
compel this result as local rules cannot alter the Washington Rules of Civil Procedure. See Parry v. Windermere Real Estate/East, 102 Wn. App. 920, 928-29 (2000)(Local Rule cannot waive right under CR 12(h) to assert personal jurisdiction defenses in answer); See also Harbor Enters. v. Gudjonsson, 116 Wn.2d 283, 293 (1991); State v. Chavez, 111 Wn.2d 548, 554 (1988)(Local court rules are subordinate to state rules of civil procedure).

In summary, and with such respect as is due the Panel’s suggestion that the Bank’s motion to amend should be granted, it is Petersons’ contention that judges must respect citizens constitutional rights and not waive them without a factual basis for doing so. Similarly, with
respect, the Panel had no constitutional authority—and violated the Petersons’ right to due process of law—when it invented an argument to help the Bank, which was inconsistent with the Civil Rues and cases interpreting them. Thus, this Court should also not waive the Petersons’ right to adequate service of process before granting a motion to amend because such a result would be futile under existing law, notwithstanding anything the Court of Appeals panel has said. Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 899-901 (2020)
                                      *                                  *                                  *

Not since the United States Supreme Court’s constitutionally and morally bankrupt decision in Sanford v. Scott, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)2 has the integrity of America’s judicial system been more in doubt than it is now. See e.g., The Wall Street Journal, “131 Federal Judges Broke the Law
by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest” (September 28, 2021); House Judiciary Committee, Nadler & Johnson Statement on Reports Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases
Where They Had a Financial Interest (September 29, 2021)4. The problem an economically biased judiciary poses for our democratic republic is that it undercuts the basic premises upon which this
nation was founded, i.e., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and due process of law. Unfortunately, for us, the People, these constitutional structures are not self enforcing, but must be enforced by those who have been economically incentivized to promote the interests of government workers—and their creditor allies—against this nation’s citizens.

Il tema della libertà costituisce nel pensiero ricoeuriano un elemento sorgivo della sua riflessione, che progressivamente diventa un fiume carsico: un che di sommerso che tuttavia riemerge di tanto in tanto nella sua scrittura. Alla luce di questa idea il presente saggio intende sondare la presenza di un pensiero della libertà nell’ampio orizzonte dell’opera ricoeuriana, al fine di evidenziare alcune dinamiche proprie del pensatore francese nell’orizzonte di una riflessione sempre unitaria, anche se mai totalizzante. Il tema della libertà nella sua realizzazione personale diviene così il centro dell’argomentazione a partire dal quale si irradiano le tematiche più care a Ricoeur: dal tema del linguaggio e della metafora, a quello del tempo e della narrazione, fino a giungere alla dimensione etica, legata al tema della volontà e del male e da ultimo sfociante nella questione del riconoscimento, tra giustizia e amore. Il tentativo di questo lavoro è propriamente quello di ricercare nella dimensione della libertà quella tessitura profonda e costante che tiene insieme il vasto orizzonte delle ricerche ricoeuriane.

Nizam al-Mulk’s Siyasat-Nama and Yusuf Khass Hajib’s Kutadgu Bilig have had an enormous influence on the concept of public administration in the Turkish tradition. A review of the management literature shows that intellectual curiosity into Siyasat-Nama and Kutadgu Bilig is stuck on the level of sympathy. However, both thinkers deserve a deep scientific exploration by taking the administrative facet of their thoughts into account. The qualitative content analysis of these two texts exposes a list of attributes that make a ruler effective. Among them, justice, integrity, and benevolence are attributes that render administration ethical. This study firstly analyzes these ethical administrative attributes comprehensively aiming to discover how they are interconnected, and secondly links them to ongoing ethics-based discussions in order to derive concrete implications for contemporary business management. Briefly stated, integrity, justice, and benevolence in unison generate a framework of ethical administration. Each attribute has equally significant place in the system. To draw an analogy, integrity is the foundation of an administrative structure; justice is the structure itself, and benevolence is its ornament.

Aboriginal incarceration rates are much higher than the general Australian population. Moreover, indigenous women represent 34% of the total number of inmates. As if this wasn't enough, the legal and welfare systems are removing indigenous children from their families and culture, serving as a mechanism of forced assimilation.

By Suzi Hutchings for Debates Indígenas.

Çağdaş siyaset teorisinde John Rawls'ın idealize ettiği adalet fikrinin yarattığı eleştirel ortam çok geniş ve takibi zor bir literatürün önünü açmıştır. Adalet kavramını merkezine alan çalışmaların işgal ettiği alan ve bu tartışmalardaki çeşitlilik göz önüne alındığında adalete ilişkin çalışmaların sürekliliğini takip etmenin oldukça zor olduğu söylenebilir. Bu nedenle, tartışmaları daha anlamlı hale getirebilmek için dönemsel bir sınıflandırmanın yanı sıra tematik birtakım eğilimleri de göz önüne almak gerekmektedir. Bu tespit üzere çalışma normatif anlamda adaletin çağdaş dönemde hangi bağlam ve temalar çerçevesinde açıklanabileceği sorusuna odaklanır ve bunu sorunsallaştırır. Adalete ilişkin dönemsel ve bağlamsal farklılıkların üzerine bir sorgulama yaparken benzer ve muarız düşüncelerin izleklerini takip etmeye çalışır. Adalete ilişkin anlatıların arka planında eşitlik-farklılık geriliminin önemli bir rol oynadığını, bu anlamda bir tarafta adaletin eşit muamele fikriyle anlam kazandığı düşüncesinin, diğer tarafta ise eşitlikten ziyade farklılıkların dikkate alındığı bir eğilimin olduğunu iddia eder. "Adalet-Farklılık İlişkisi" olarak adlandırdığımız bu durum, adalete ilişkin süregelen tartışmaların birey, grup, yetenek, işlev, topluluk, cinsiyet, çevre, kültür, kimlik vb. farklılıklar veya çeşitliliklerin vurgulandığı bir temada ele alındığı iddiasını taşır. Bu anlamda çalışma "hakkaniyet olarak adalet, yetkilenme teorisi, kapasite yaklaşımı, adalete dair feminist ilgiler, toplulukçu eğilim, temsil ve tanınmaya" dayanan geniş bir düzlemde adaletin farklılık bağlamında anlam kazanacağını iddia eder. İlgili çalışma ve yaklaşımlardan hareketle adalet tartışmalarına dair tasnif ve çeşitlilik problemini aşmayı sağlayacak bir bakış açısının imkanları üzerine bir sorgulama yaparak, bu denli bir sorgulamanın farklılık ekseninde düşünülmesinin gerekliliğine dikkat çeker.


The critical environment created by the justice idea in contemporary political theory idealized by John Rawls has paved the way for a very wide and of course challenging literature. Considering the area occupied by studies focusing on the concept of justice and the diversity of these debates, it can be claimed that following the continuity of the studies on justice is very difficult. Therefore, in order to make discussions more meaningful it is necessary to take into consideration not only a periodical classification but also thematic tendencies. Based on this, the current study focuses on the question of around what contexts and themes the justice in normative sense might be defined in the contemporary era and problematizes it. While questioning periodical and contextual differences related to justice, the study tries to follow the paths of similar and opponent thoughts. It claims that the equality-difference tension plays an important role in the background of the accounts of the justice, and in this regard, it claims that there is the idea of the justice becoming meaningful by the principle of equal treatment on the one hand and there is the tendency to consider differences apart from equality on the other hand. This situation which we call the "Justice-Difference Relationship" contains the claim that the ongoing debates on the subject of justice is considered within a theme where differences or diversities such as individual, group, ability, function, community, gender, environment, culture, and identity. In this regard, the study claims that justice would become meaningful in the context of differences on a broad level based on "justice as fairness, entitlement theory, capability approach, feminist interests on justice, communitarian tendency, representation and recognition". It inquires on the possibilities of a viewpoint that will overcome the problem of classification and diversity in relation to debates on justice with reference to the relevant works and approaches and draws attention to the necessity of considering such an inquiry on the axis of difference.

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.
              The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
          The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protesters. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries(some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
            This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

The global COVID-19 pandemic is a health crisis, an economic crisis, and a justice crisis. It also brings to light multiple ongoing, underlying social crises. The COVID-19 crisis is actively revealing crises of energy sovereignty in at least four ways. First, there are many whose access to basic health services is compromised because of the lack of energy services necessary to provide these services. Second, some people are more vulnerable to COVID-19 because of exposure to environmental pollution associated with energy production. Third, energy services are vital to human wellbeing, yet access to energy services is largely organized as a consumer good. The loss of stable income precipitated by COVID-19 may therefore mean that many lose reliable access to essential energy services. Fourth, the COVID-19 crisis has created a window of opportunity for corporate interests to engage in aggressive pursuit of energy agendas that perpetuate carbon intensive and corporate controlled energy s...

Les MARC sont aujourd’hui sous les feux de la rampe et nombreux sont les travaux qu’ils ont déjà suscités. Les questions sont nombreuses, qui interrogent notamment leur place dans l’arsenal judiciaire existant, leur capacité à s’imposer comme véritable alternative et le danger qu’il y aurait à laisser prospérer de telles justices « à l’ombre de l’Etat ». La critique est ici pleine de sens, et rejoint une de celles qui s’expriment peut-être le plus fortement en terre de civil law.
Là où les Anglo-Saxons évoquent et s’emploient à pratiquer une “restorative justice”, le vocabulaire français s’en tient à une prudente médiation envisagée dans le sillage de l’Etat. Les MARC nourrissent donc souvent la critique de la justice, critique encore formulée en leur temps par Villon, d’Aubigné ou Voltaire. Le déploiement des modes dits alternatifs entre aussi en conjonction avec le phénomène d'engorgement de la justice étatique, voire du tout étatique. D'où une dérive du concept.
L’objectif du colloque international organisé par l’Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense les 23 et 24 mars 2017, sans renoncer à une analyse technique, sera de privilégier une approche interdisciplinaire en déployant la problématique des MARC dans le temps et l’espace. Son but est de revenir sur ces justices atypiques, souvent décrites comme sans État, de montrer comment les cultures envisagent la résolution de leurs litiges. Il s’agira aussi de restituer le contexte idéologique dans lequel se sont épanouies les Alternative Dispute Resolution, les liens qu’elles entretiennent avec le mouvement critique qui s’est développé de part et d’autre de la Manche.
Que penser, dès lors, de la survie des modes traditionnels de règlement des conflits une fois la communauté mise en contact avec un ordre juridique institutionnalisé ? Même dans les pays de common law, n’y a-t-il pas une certaine utopie à croire à la possibilité d’une justice alternative ? L’histoire et l’anthropologie – à l’aune des précédents romains, médiévaux ou modernes (essentiellement coloniaux) – seront ici sollicitées comme exemples capables de répondre à la difficile question de savoir si des pratiques proprement alternatives ont pu exister, si d’autres façons de traiter la litigiosité ont pu se développer à l’écart des institutions.

GODOY, M. G.. Justiça e Democracia: o Liberalismo Igualitário de John Rawls, o Procedimentalismo de Jürgen Habermas e a Proposta de Carlos Santiago Nino. In: Clèmerson Merlin Clève. (Org.). Constituição, Democracia e Justiça: aportes para um constitucionalismo igualitário. 1ed.Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2011, v. , p. 369-397.

Around 2.5 million children participate in judicial proceedings across the European Union (EU) every year, affected by parental divorce or as victims of, or witnesses to, crime. Although their effective participation in such proceedings is vital for improving the operation of justice, the treatment of children in justice systems remains a concern. FRA investigated to what extent children’s rights to be heard, to be informed, to be protected, and to non-discrimination are fulfilled in practice.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publicationTransformations of education in changing Europe are multifaceted. One of the latter is the process of strengthening the cooperation among universities in this part of the world. This cooperation is carried out in many fields – from joint projects and researches – to joint analyses, discourses and publications. This monograph – a collection of reflections, thoughts and polemics deriving from theoretical and empirical researches, carried out as a part of a joint research project simultaneously undertaken at both these universities under the name “Problems and challenges of modern education” – constitutes one of the fruits of the cooperation between Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Cracow University and the University of Ljubljana

Abstract,In this comparative,survey,of seventy-three Russians and ninety-two US managers, we explore differences and similarities in ethical decision-making among respondents from these two countries within a business context. Using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1988) multi-criteria ethics instrument, we examined whether business people,in Russia and,the US differed in their judgment,of the ethical content of business decisions. Russia and the US provide an interesting

The question whether a socially mobile society is conducive to subjective well-being (SWB) has rarely been investigated. This paper fills this gap by analyzing the SWB effects of intergenerational earnings mobility and equality in educational attainment at the societal level. Using socio-demographic information on 44’000 individuals in 30 OECD countries obtained from the World Values Survey 1997-2001, this study shows that living in a socially mobile society is conducive to individual life satisfaction. Differentiating between perceived and actual social mobility, we find that both exert rather independent effects, particularly in their interplay with income inequality. We identify a positive interaction of perceived social mobility that mitigates the overall SWB lowering effect of income inequality. In contrast to expectations, a high degree of actual social mobility yields an overall impact of income inequality that is SWB lowering, while for low social mobility the effect of ineq...

In this article, I offer the opposing view (con-side) against reparations for American slavery, as if in a forensic debate before a moot court: I presume the American public will judge the merits of my opposing arguments. I oppose reparations for slavery based on: 1) the legal standard of culpability, 2) the “clean-hands doctrine,” 3) Black people who were themselves slave owners, and 4) fairness in the administration justice. While anyone else is welcome to argue the pro-side, I argue the con-side of the following proposition: America owes Black Americans reparations because of its history of plantation slavery, which has privileged White Americans economically over Black Americans. I provide a plethora of evidence that reparations and justice are incompatible in the application of American justice. Moreover, any law requiring reparations for slavery could create an unintended liability for far too many Black Americans whose ancestry extends far beyond Sub-Saharan Africa.

Funniness, in its capacity to unify and divide, is inextricably tied to concerns of harm and redress, that is, to justice. John Rawls tells us that justice can best be envisioned and dealt by people who view a situation through a “veil of ignorance” such that they do not know their stake in the system they effect – an “original position.” John E. Seery takes that train of thought to an ultimate extreme, claiming that one can only truly conceptualize just human relations if one has shuffled beyond the mortal coil and views the world from the afterlife – a “final position.” According to this orientation, then, we could understand the ethical implications of funny discourse better if we find a possibility for funniness in the original – or final – position. Unfortunately, these positions are simply thought, so the prospect for any study of real-world justice in funny artifacts seems unrealistic.
Then again, consider this: John P. Harmon published a series of hand-drawn cartoons between 1944 and 1957 in a newspaper whose audience members had been forced to abandon their occupations as well as their family ties and to redefine themselves – a sort of ad hoc original position. What’s more, most of this audience was considered terminally ill, or at least consigned to remain confined to medical care for the remainder of their lives – as much final position insight as one can attain during one’s lifetime. This newspaper, the Carville STAR, was a publication based in the National Leprosarium of the United States in Carville, Louisiana. Harmon’s cartoons about everyday life with Hansen’s Disease (leprosy) provided the colony’s resident patients with mirth in their isolated and terminal existence.

Harmon’s work will help us see what funniness might look like in an original or final position and therefore what (if Rawls and Seery are to be reified) a just form of the funny might entail. Although generalizing from a single case is always risky, this case gives us some concrete play in the face of an otherwise purely theoretical field of inquiry that can bring the philosophy of humor to life in invaluable ways.

This article defends the thesis that, in light of the postulates of liberal ethics, it is not possible to put forward universal arguments in support of any form of marriage. The existing forms of marriage should be either deemed unjust or founded on specific arguments recognized within a particular political community and determining the understanding of justice in a particular society. It defends the thesis that the requirement of universality, and consequently of impartiality, is not met, since behind every form of marriage there is a certain " minimum " anthropological approach. Marriage is discussed as a privilege granted to particular groups by the political community. The comments are made with reference to the discussion between Krzysztof Saja and Tomasz Sieczkowski concerning the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples in Polish legislation.

Assassination has always been part of war and in recent years it has played increasingly important roles in United States military policy. The assassination of Osama bin Laden offers itself as an example of an assassination that nevertheless claims to be just. Comparing the bin Laden assassination with the assassination of Simon Petlura by Sholom Schwartzbard in 1927 and the kidnapping and trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, this article argues that assassinations, which under certain conditions are justified under international law, can also be just, but only when they are accompanied by the risk of a jury trial.

Is the just man happier than the unjust man? The answer to this question motivates Plato’s writing on justice in both the Gorgias and the Republic and this is the broad claim I argue Socrates is challenged to prove. In this dissertation I will argue 4 things. First, Socrates fails to prove the just man is happier than the unjust man in response to Callicles in the Gorgias. Second, Callicles’ challenge is fundamentally similar to Thrasymachus’ challenge in Book I of the Republic, which Socrates also fails to respond to, leading to Glaucon and Adeimantus reformulating the challenge in Book II of the Republic. Third, Socrates successfully proves the just man is happier than the unjust man in response to Glaucon and Adeimantus. Fourth, Socrates’ arguments in theRepublicwould constitute an effective response to Callicles in the Gorgias. Chapter One will focus on Callicles’ challenge and Socrates’ failed response. Chapter Two will examine the similarities and differences between Callicles’ challenge in theGorgias andThrasymachus’ challenge inBook Iof the Republic; Socrates’ failure to respond to Thrasymachus in Book I and Glaucon and Adeimantus’ reformulation inBook II. Chapter Three will examine Socrates’ response to this reformulation. Chapter Four will examine whether Socrates’ response to Glaucon and Adeimantus would successfully respond to Callicles. In this dissertation, I will refer throughout to ‘Socrates’ despite the difficulty in attributing everything Plato puts into Socrates’ mouth to the historical Socrates.

Textes réunis par Florent Garnier.

Ont participé à cet ouvrage :
Olivier DEVAUX, Professeur d’histoire du droit – CTHDIP (E.A. 789) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Carlos GARRIGA, Professeur d’histoire du droit – Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU).
Caroline GAU-CABEE, Maître de conférences en histoire du droit – CTHDIP (E.A. 789) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Jean-Louis HALPERIN, Professeur d’histoire du droit – Centre de Théorie et Analyse du droit (UMR 7074) – Ecole Normale Supérieure.
Jacques KRYNEN, Professeur d’histoire du droit – CTHDIP (E.A 789) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Laurent MACÉ, Maître de conférences HDR en Histoire médiévale, FRAMESPA – Université de Toulouse II-Jean Jaurès.
Wanda MASTOR, Professeur de droit – IRDEIC-Centre de droit comparé (E.A. 4211) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Horatia MUIR WATT, Professeur de droit, Ecole de droit, Sciences po, Paris.
Mathieu SOULA, Professeur d’histoire du droit à l’Université de Reims.
Romy SUTRA, Doctorante en histoire du droit - CTHDIP (E.A. 789) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Marine VIGNERON, Doctorante en histoire du droit - CTHDIP (E.A. 789) – Université Toulouse 1 Capitole.
Barbara VILLEZ, Professeur à l’Université Paris 8 – IHEJ, Irisso-LCP (UMR 7170) CNRS.

What is Justice? How is it related to Faith? These questions are considered in the context of Empire’s propaganda and the truth of God’s alternative. The truth is: God is open to us in our very otherness, inspiring us to be open to each other. Faith is the recognition of this and the response to it. Justice is rooted in such openness to each other, whereas our being closed to each other causes injustice. But when we recognise this, we must also see our continuing complicity with injustice; when we name the distinction between Empire and Kingdom, we must not exclude current agents of Empire; when we are clear about the difference, we must not forget that, ultimately, God’s openness shakes all such divisions and builds a greater solidarity. So the writing is on the wall – through Daniel, Jeremiah, and Mark 3: 20-30 – warning us not to falsify God’s openness.

In this article, homicides in France are examined and framed within an international context. Homicide, given its association with other forms of criminality and delinquency, is an excellent index to employ in examining rates of increase in violent acts in France. Homicides in France often occur in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, minors are infrequently implicated in homicides. Several factors are proposed to explain the relatively low rate of homicides in France. Finally, France's penal response to homicide is examined in terms of its potential braking effect on the rate of homicides committed. Accounting for the overall pattern of delinquency and criminality within an international context, it could be hypothesized that in France, relative to other nations, forms of violent delinquency have taken the place of homicidal acts.

Der Beitrag fasst wesentliche Befunde eines Gutachtens im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Naturschutz zusammen. Er erklärt, was Gerechtigkeitsargumente im Naturschutz bedeuten, welche Personen und Themen sie betreffen und welche praktische Relevanz sie haben.
Zunächst wird die Kategorie „Gerechtigkeit“ von anderen ethischen Argumenten wie „Klugheit“ und „Glück“ abgegrenzt. Als ihr wesentliches Merkmal wird ihr unbedingter Geltungsanspruch dargestellt, der zwar eine hohe Verbindlichkeit, aber auch eine große Begründungslast mit sich bringt. Anhand der Frage, wem gegenüber moralische Verpflichtungen postuliert werden, werden Fragen sozialer, globaler, intergenerationeller und ökologischer Gerechtigkeit unterschieden. Im Hinblick auf die Frage, um was es bei Gerechtigkeitsforderungen geht, werden die Konzepte Verteilungsgerechtigkeit, Verfahrensgerechtigkeit und ausgleichende Gerechtigkeit erläutert. Abschließend wird die
praktische Relevanz von Gerechtigkeitsargumenten am Beispiel des Rechts auf Naturerleben, der gleichberechtigten Teilhabe von Menschen mit Behinderungen und der Rio-Deklaration erläutert.

The paper presents basic results of a study prepared for the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. It explains the concept of justice, portrays different groups and topics referred to by justice, and clarifies the practical relevance of these conceptual considerations. First, the category ‘Justice’ is discriminated from the categories ‘Prudence’ and ‘the Good Life’. The main difference is that arguments of justice claim intrapersonal validity. This claim brings about stricter obligations, but therefore also requires comprehensive justifications. With regard to the question to whom we have moral obligations, the article discriminates between social, global, intergenerational and ecological justice. Regards different topics of justice, distributive justice, procedural justice and retributive justice are considered. The practical relevance of these considerations is demonstrated using the examples of the right to
experience nature, the equal participation of people with disabilities and the Rio Declaration.

This article seeks to show as to how a notion of universal justice, the rationale behind quality education, can be achieved through actions such as ummah (communal engagement), shūrā (public deliberation) and jihād (just striving which includes the recognition of the rights of others). Thereafter, it is argued as to why and how these acts of justice are linked to various conceptions of Islamic education, namely, taʿlīm (socialisation), tarbiyah (individuation) and ta’dīb (good action). In the last part of the article, the author draws on an empirical study to show as to how virtues of Islamic education can be used in an institution of higher learning to stimulate discussions about achieving universal justice.