GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Ihre E-Mail wurde erfolgreich gesendet. Bitte prüfen Sie Ihren Maileingang.

Leider ist ein Fehler beim E-Mail-Versand aufgetreten. Bitte versuchen Sie es erneut.

Vorgang fortführen?

Exportieren
Filter
  • Unbekannt  (3)
Materialart
Verlag/Herausgeber
Person/Organisation
Sprache
  • Unbekannt  (3)
Erscheinungszeitraum
  • 1
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Brill ; 2020
    In:  European Review of International Studies Vol. 7, No. 2-3 ( 2020-12-17), p. 293-316
    In: European Review of International Studies, Brill, Vol. 7, No. 2-3 ( 2020-12-17), p. 293-316
    Kurzfassung: On various occasions, states have condemned other nations or groups for mass atrocities they commit; but this rarely leads to any step to redress the untoward situation. This article therefore asks: What functions does blame serve when the blamers lack – or are reluctant to use – the power or authority to punish transgressors? Unlike approaches that focus on the effects of blaming on the wrongdoer, we argue that openly attributing responsibility for wrongdoings to another state or non-state actor has become a normative strategy to shape the way a government is perceived domestically and abroad. Specifically, international blame serves two main objectives: an immediate, communicative function, that is, to express moral protest, and a future-oriented purpose, that is, to dispel future indictment of complicity. We suggest that a corollary of this normative strategy is to make non-intervention morally acceptable. Thus, while in principle the blamer might stand up for the violated norm and value the victims, the strategic use of blame tends to legitimate inaction, by diverting attention away from blaming’s deontic commitments. The article therefore warns against the instrumental use of blame as an act of supererogation (that is, an act that is not compulsory but whose performance is praiseworthy), and as a form of moral clearance (whereby the blamer acknowledges the issue but leaves responsibility for finding solution to the international society). Rather, while blaming ascribes responsibility for the act to an agent, we argue, it also puts the blamer in a specific moral situation: the necessity to take measures that interrupt the unfolding action. Our analysis leads us to put forward a plausible norm that broadens the scope of complicity in international politics: states become complicit in the wrongdoing of other actors (states or non-states) whenever they violate moral obligations that blaming demands. In other words, to blame is to commit oneself to act, though the exact nature of this action varies.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 2196-6923 , 2196-7415
    Sprache: Unbekannt
    Verlag: Brill
    Publikationsdatum: 2020
    ZDB Id: 2870035-1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 2
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Brill ; 2017
    In:  European Review of International Studies Vol. 4, No. 2-3 ( 2017-12-26), p. 119-121
    In: European Review of International Studies, Brill, Vol. 4, No. 2-3 ( 2017-12-26), p. 119-121
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 2196-6923 , 2196-7415
    Sprache: Unbekannt
    Verlag: Brill
    Publikationsdatum: 2017
    ZDB Id: 2870035-1
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
  • 3
    Online-Ressource
    Online-Ressource
    Brill ; 2020
    In:  The Hague Journal of Diplomacy Vol. 15, No. 1-2 ( 2020-03-16), p. 174-184
    In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Brill, Vol. 15, No. 1-2 ( 2020-03-16), p. 174-184
    Kurzfassung: This essay argues that the work of ministries of foreign affairs ( MFA s) centres on three modes of articulation; namely, intersubjective, practical and material articulations. However, much research in diplomatic studies has yet to come to terms with the specific ways in which these modes of articulation coalesce to produce a distinctive foreign policy. I suggest that a field theory account of MFA s offers a reliable set of tools that enables us to understand how a foreign policy takes shape, the dynamics that sustain it and the circumstances under which it is likely to change. Because a field’s existence is often derived from its relational consequences, the essay clarifies the link between a field and its effects, using the concept of ‘affordance’. In this sense, theorising MFA s connects a philosophy of action — which focuses on the field theory’s concepts — and a philosophy of science — which emphasises relations within and between different modes of articulation.
    Materialart: Online-Ressource
    ISSN: 1871-1901 , 1871-191X
    Sprache: Unbekannt
    Verlag: Brill
    Publikationsdatum: 2020
    ZDB Id: 2236882-6
    Standort Signatur Einschränkungen Verfügbarkeit
    BibTip Andere fanden auch interessant ...
Schließen ⊗
Diese Webseite nutzt Cookies und das Analyse-Tool Matomo. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier...