Mi, narod i svet: Problematični odnos američkog liberalizma i međunarodnog prava
Sažetak
Uloga koju u društvu igra pravo od centralnog je značaja u svakoj verziji liberalne teorije. Koliko od da je teško obezbediti saglasnost u pogledu ontološke prirode i epistemoloških zakteva koje liberalna teorija postavlja pred zakondavstvo, teškoće se uveliko umnožavaju kada liberalna teorija treba da se primeni na slučaj međunaronih odnosa. Situacija koja stvara najveći problem liberalnoj teoriji je kada pojam pravde treba primeniti van teritorijalnih granica moderne suverene države, pošto ne postoji međunarodni sudija koji bi nepristrasno i nesumnjivo razrešavao sporove. Suprotno idealima mnogih liberalnih mislilaca, sila i dalje uživa vrhovnu moć u odnosima između država, a to je kao realnost teško uskladiti s legalističkim liberalizmom kao teorijskom pozicijom.
Reference
Bass, G. J. (2000). Stay the Hand of Justice: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Best, G. (1984). Nuremberg and After: The Continuing History of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. University of Reading Press.
Bibas, S. and Burke-White, W. W. (2010). International idealism meets domestic-criminalprocedure realism. Duke Law Journal 59 (4), 637-704.
Brdar, M. and Jokic, A. (2011). Unjust Honoris Causa: Chronicle of a Most Peculiar Academic Dishonor. Kragujevac: Freedom Activities Centre.
Charney, J. I. (1987). Disputes implicating the institutional credibility of the Court: problems of non-appearance, non-participation, and non-performance, in the International Court Of Justice at a crossroads. In L. F. Damrosch (ed.) From International Court of Justice at a Crossroads (pp. 288-319). Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publisher Inc.
Dickson, T. (2015). Shklar’s legalism and the liberal paradox. Constellations 22 (2), 188–198.
Dossa, S. (1999). Legal liberalism: law, culture and identity. The European Legacy 4, 73-89.
Elshtain, B. J. (2008). Sovereignty: God, State and Self. Basic Books.
Falk, R. (1999). Telford Taylor and the legacy of Nuremberg. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Association 37, 693–723.
Goldsmith, J. and Krasner, S. (2003). Pitfalls of international idealism. Dedalus 132 (1), 47-63.
Hirsch, F. (2008). The Soviet at Nurmeberg: international law, propaganda, and the making of the postwar order. The American Historical Review 113 (3), 701-730.
Jokic, A. (2004). Genocidalism. The Journal of Ethics 8 (4), 251-97.
Kahn, P. W. (2000a). War powers and the millennium. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 34, 11-60.
Kahn, P. W. (2000b). Speaking law to power: Popular Sovereignty, human rights and the new international order. Chicago Journal of International Law 1 (1), 1-18.
Kahn, P. W. (2003) Why the United States is so opposed. Crimes of War Magazine (December 2003); available at http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html
Kahn, P. W. (2005). Putting Liberalism in its Place. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kahn, P. W. (2010). Sacrificial nation. The Utopian, 6 (March 29th, 2010); available at http://www.the-utopian.org/post/2340099709/sacrificial-nation.
Kahn, P. W. (2011). Political Theology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kant, E. (1970). Perpetual Peace. In H. Reiss (ed), Kant’s Political Writings (pp. 93-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katzenstein, S. and Snyder, J. (2009). Expediency of the angels. The National Interest (March-April, 2009), pp. 58-65; available at http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/expediency-of-the-angels-3041.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Maogoto, J. N. (2004). War Crimes and Realpolitik: International Justice from World War I to the 21st Century. Lynne Riener Pub.
Mégret, F. (2002). The politics of international justice. European Journal of International Law 13 (5), 1261-1284.
Pal, R. (1953). International Military Tribunal for the Far East: Dissentient Judgment of Justice R.B. Pal. Calcutta: Sanyal and Co.
Power, S. (2002). A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.
Richardson, H. S. (2002). Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning About the Ends of Policy. Oxford University Press.
Rodman, K. (2006). Compromising justice: why the Bush administration and the NGOs are both wrong about the ICC. Ethics & International Affairs 20 (1), 25-53.
Sellars, K. (2010). Imperfect justice in Nuremberg and Tokyo. European journal of International Law 21 (4), 1085–1102.
Shklar, J. N. (1964). Legalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Shklar, J. N. (1998). The work of Michael Walzer. In S. Hoffmann (ed.) Political Thought and Political Thinkers (pp. 376-385). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Simma, B. (1999). The impact of Nuremberg and Tokyo: attempts at a comparison. In A. Nisuke (ed.) Japan and International Law: Past, Present and Future (pp. 59-84). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Snyder, J. and Vinjamuri, L. (2003). Trials and errors: principle and pragmatism in strategies of international justice. International Security 28 (3), 5-44.
Stilz, A. (2009). Liberal Loyalty. Princeton: University Press.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Walzer, M. (2007). Thinking Politically. Yale University Press.