Книги: "Legitimate grounds"

1

Morris, J. Peter. Legitimate lobbying: A guide to UK Government relations with brief notes on the EU. London: PMS Publications, 1998.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

2

Baur, Dorothea. NGOs as legitimate partners of corporations: A political conceptualization. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

3

Steiner, Kristian. Strategies for international legitimacy: A comparative study of elite behavior in ethnic conflicts. Lund: Lund University Press, 1996.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

4

Aklaev, Airat. Ethnopolitical legitimacy and ethnic conflict management: The case of the Russian Federation in the early 1990s. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constrctive Conflict Management, 1996.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

5

Parpworth, Neil. 14. The grounds for judicial review. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198810704.003.0014.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

6

Brown, Alexander. Consequentialist Grounds for the Principles of Administrative Justice. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812753.003.0006.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

Section I explores the possibility that the principles of administrative justice are partly grounded by the Difference Principle. Section II considers whether the administrative goods of trust-building and making credible commitments might also normatively support or ground principles concerning the protection of legitimate expectations. Section III looks to the more basic aim of minimizing the pain of frustration as normative support or grounding for my principles of administrative justice. Finally, Section IV considers whether the principles have any negative unintended consequences that could potentially derail the proposed consequentialist grounding of them.

7

Brown, Alexander. Deontological Grounds for the Principles of Administrative Justice. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812753.003.0007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

Section I invokes the ideal of the rule of law as another possible source of normative support or grounding for my principles of administrative justice for the management of legitimate expectations. Following on from this, Section II looks into the Kantian principle that agents ought to be treated never purely as means but always as ends in themselves. Section III turns to Ronald Dworkin’s idea that governments have a fundamental duty to treat citizens with equal concern and respect, as yet another potential normative ground for my principles of administrative justice. Finally, Section IV puts onto the table but ultimately rejects a possible objection to both the Liability Precept and the Secondary Duties Principle based on the deontological values of democratic majoritarianism and equality.

8

Brown, Alexander. A Theory of Legitimate Expectations for Public Administration. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812753.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

In this book Alexander Brown addresses the fundamental terms of our relationship to governmental administrative agencies, and whether they should have unfettered discretion over administrative policies and measures. In doing so he develops a new theory of legitimate expectations for public administration based on answers to the following questions. First, what makes expectations legitimate? Second, what principles of administrative justice should govern the conduct of governmental administrative agencies in relation to legitimate expectations? Third, what normatively supports or grounds these principles of administrative justice? In answer to the first question Brown proposes a new Responsibility-Based Account which focuses on the normatively salient issue of whether or not governmental administrative agencies were responsible for creating the relevant expectations, allied to assuming a role responsibility for making the relevant decisions. In answer to the second, he introduces three such principles: the Legitimate Expectations Principle, the Liability Precept, and the Secondary Duties Principle. According to these principles, governmental administrative agencies have prima facie obligations to honour expectations they create and should be liable for damage and loss they directly cause by creating and then frustrating legitimate expectations. Moreover, if governmental administrative agencies are unable or unwilling to pay adequate compensation, then other public bodies, which have the capacity, have a secondary duty to intervene to ensure that administrative justice is served. Finally, he adopts a pluralistic approach to normatively grounding his conception of administrative justice for the management of legitimate expectations, drawing on a range of both consequentialist considerations and deontological norms.

9

Delmas, Candice. A Duty to Resist. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190872199.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

What are our responsibilities in the face of injustice? Many philosophers argue for what is called political obligation—the duty to obey the law of nearly just, legitimate states. Even proponents of civil disobedience generally hold that, given this moral duty, breaking the law requires justification. By contrast, activists from Henry David Thoreau to the Movement for Black Lives have long recognized a responsibility to resist injustice. Taking seriously this activism, this book wrestles with the problem of political obligation in real world societies that harbor injustice. It argues that the very grounds supporting a duty to obey the law—grounds such as the natural duty of justice, the principle of fairness, the Samaritan duty, and associative duties—also impose obligations of resistance under unjust social conditions. The work therefore expands political obligation to include a duty to resist injustice even in legitimate states, and further shows that under certain real-world conditions, this duty to resist demands principled disobedience. Against the mainstream in public, legal, and philosophical discourse, the book argues that such disobedience need not always be civil. Sometimes, covert, violent, evasive, or offensive acts of lawbreaking can be justified, even required. Illegal assistance to undocumented migrants, leaks of classified information, hacktivism sabotage, armed self-defense, guerrilla art, and other modes of resistance are viable and even necessary forms of resistance. There are limits: principle alone does not justify lawbreaking. But uncivil disobedience can sometimes be required in the effort to resist injustice.

10

Plowright, William. Armed Groups and International Legitimacy. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

11

Kromhout, David, and Irene E. Zwiep. God’s Word Confirmed. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806837.003.0007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

The nature of the Amsterdam Jewish community engendered a dynamic in which philology played but a small part. Three authors are discussed, in order to depict ongoing debates on Bible and oral tradition as authoritative sources. Uriel da Costa rejected rabbinic oral law, claiming that it amounted to a limitation of the perfection of the written law. Conversely, Immanuel Aboab defended the oral law, on the grounds that both written law and human reason were divine in origin, therefore it was perfectly legitimate to employ reason to interpret written law. Menasseh ben Israel adhered to a meandering casuistry in reconciling contradictory biblical passages. He confirmed the age-old Talmudic idea of the disunity of the biblical text: inconsistencies should be seen as God’s invitation to mankind to ponder scriptural meaning piously and creatively.

12

Eldridge, Robert D., and Paul Midford. Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force: Search for Legitimacy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

13

Sadurski, Wojciech, Michael Sevel, and Kevin Walton, eds. Legitimacy. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198825265.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This collection brings together scholars of jurisprudence and political theory to probe the question of ‘legitimacy’. It offers discussions that interrogate the nature of legitimacy, how legitimacy is intertwined with notions of statehood, and how legitimacy reaches beyond the state into supranational institutions and international law. Chapter I considers benefit-based, merit-based, and will-based theories of state legitimacy. Chapter II examines the relationship between expertise and legitimate political authority. Chapter III attempts to make sense of John Rawls’s account of legitimacy in his later work. Chapter IV observes that state sovereignty persists, since no alternative is available, and that the success of the assortment of international organizations that challenge state sovereignty depends on their ability to attract loyalty. Chapter V argues that, to be complete, an account of a state’s legitimacy must evaluate not only its powers and its institutions, but also its officials. Chapter VI covers the rule of law and state legitimacy. Chapter VII considers the legitimation of the nation state in a post-national world. Chapter VIII contends that legitimacy beyond the state should be understood as a subject-conferred attribute of specific norms that generates no more than a duty to respect those norms. Chapter IX is a reply to critics of attempts to ground the legitimacy of suprastate institutions in constitutionalism. Chapter X examines Joseph Raz’s perfectionist liberalism. Chapter XI attempts to bring some order to debates about the legitimacy of international courts.

14

Vallier, Kevin, and Michael Weber. Conscience, Religion, and Exemptions. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190666187.003.0002.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

There is widespread agreement about the necessity of legally protecting the freedom to determine one’s own stance toward religion and to act on the basis of one’s deeply held beliefs. But the agreement stops there. The question of the meaning and extension of religious freedom and of its relationship with arguably broader notions of freedom of conscience is vexed and controversial. Moreover, as a consequence of the indeterminacy about the meaning and scope of religious freedom, the normative status of religious exemptions and other forms of accommodation remains contested. Do religious accommodations have a role to play in a fair system of social cooperation? Is there something special about religion that makes it acceptable to exempt religiously committed citizens from otherwise legitimate rules of general application? Political and legal theorists are divided on this issue. This chapter argues that there is something special about religion that warrants, under specific circumstances, reasonable accommodation measures. It also argues that religious and spiritual commitments can and should be analogized with a certain category of secular commitments that can be called “meaning-giving beliefs and commitments.” Both religious and secular meaning-giving beliefs and commitments will be presented as legitimate grounds for accommodations claims. The chapter first summarizes why the author thinks that religious exemptions are morally justified, and then addresses some of the criticisms put forward by those who argue that something crucial is lost when religious freedom is collapsed into an allegedly broader category such as freedom of conscience or ethical independence. This chapter mainly focuses on Cécile Laborde’s challenge to what she calls “egalitarian theories of religious freedom.”

15

Eldridge, Robert D., and Paul Midford. The Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force: Search for Legitimacy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

16

Eldridge, Robert D., and Paul Midford. The Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force: Search for Legitimacy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

17

Banu, Roxana. Legitimacy and Autonomy. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198819844.003.0007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter provides an analysis of state-centered and individualistic theories of legitimacy in PrIL and distinguishes them from the relational internationalist perspective. It shows that state-centered theories determined the legitimacy of applying one law or another within interstate relationships. Individualistic theories linked the legitimacy of the applicable law to particular dimensions of political affiliation. By contrast, this chapter shows how relational internationalist authors envisioned different dimensions of legitimacy from both the state-centered and the individualistic positions, by focusing on an interpersonal relationship, as opposed to an isolated individual, and on private law, as opposed to constitutional or public law generally. According to the relational internationalist perspective, the legitimacy of imposing one law over another is justified on different grounds, including by reference to the actions of the parties, their expectations, the values underlying private law relationships, and the embeddedness of a legal relationship within one or several communities.

18

Ochoa Espejo, Paulina. On Borders. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190074197.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

When are borders justified? Who has a right to control them? Where should they be drawn? People today think of borders as an island’s shores. Just as beaches delimit a castaway’s realm, so borders define the edge of a territory occupied by a unified people, to whom the land legitimately belongs. Hence a territory is legitimate only if it belongs to a people unified by civic identity. Sadly, this Desert Island Model of territorial politics forces us to choose. If a country seeks to have a legitimate territory, it can either have democratic legitimacy or inclusion of different civic identities—but not both. The resulting politics creates mass xenophobia, migrant bashing, hoarding of natural resources, and border walls. On Borders presents an alternative model. Drawing on an intellectual tradition concerned with how land and climate shape institutions, this book argues that we should not see territories as pieces of property owned by identity groups. Instead, we should see them as watersheds: as interconnected systems where institutions, people, the biota, and the land together create overlapping civic duties and relations, what the book calls place-specific duties. This Watershed Model argues that borders are justified when they allow us to fulfill those duties; that border-control rights spring from internationally agreed conventions—not from internal legitimacy, that borders should be governed cooperatively by the neighboring states and the states system, and that border redrawing should be done with environmental conservation in mind. The book explores how this model undoes the exclusionary politics of desert islands.

19

Heiner, Prof, Bielefeldt, Ghanea Nazila, Dr, and Wiener Michael, Dr. Part 4 Intersection of Freedom of Religion or Belief with Other Human Rights, 4.3 Prohibition on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198703983.003.0027.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter addresses three aspects of torture in relation to the right to freedom of religion or belief. First, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment on the grounds of religion or belief. The prohibition of torture is recognized as forming part of jus cogens and entailing an erga omnes obligation of States towards the international community as a whole. Second, torture and other inhuman treatment may also arise from understandings of what particular religious scriptures or traditions allegedly require. They may be carried out by individuals animated by religious hatred, may enjoy the complicity of the Government, or may even be carried out by the authorities themselves. As discussed, human rights can never consider such actions a legitimate exercise of freedom of religion or belief. Finally, the religious sensitivities of detainees or prisoners of war (irrespective of the reasons for their incarceration) may be exploited in order to subject them to torture and other inhuman treatment, in other words utilizing the religion of detainees in order to subject them to tailored torture or inhuman treatment.

20

Scholte, Jan Aart, and Jonas Tallberg. Theorizing the Institutional Sources of Global Governance Legitimacy. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0004.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter queries the widely prevalent distinction between input- and output-related sources of legitimacy in global governance. Instead, it suggests a typology of sources which builds on a related but analytically sharper distinction of procedure and performance. Moreover, the chapter emphasizes that legitimacy perceptions derive from democratic, technocratic, and fairness qualities of procedure and performance. The chapter thus arrives at a novel typology whereby the sources of legitimacy for global governance institutions can be classified in terms of democratic procedure, technocratic procedure, fair procedure, democratic performance, technocratic performance, and fair performance. The chapter further illustrates a range of indicators for these sources and considers how these bases of legitimacy may vary across types of global governance institutions, countries, societal groups, and time. The result is a wider, tighter, and more systematic understanding of the institutional grounds for perceptions of global governance legitimacy.

21

Hawk, Kathleen H. Constructing the Stable State. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9798400631016.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

The United States and the international community intervened in a number of internal conflicts throughout the 1990s, generally justifying their actions on humanitarian grounds. In most cases, the external military intervention largely halted the fighting and allowed humanitarian assistance to be distributed. However, as Hawk makes clear, simply halting the fighting has not allowed these countries to create stable governments and harmonious societies. This study is based on the premise that if external actors—foreign governments, international organizations, and private groups—can not figure out how to lay a foundation for a stable, longer-term peace, there will be decreasing support for international intervention and peacekeeping/peacebuilding missions in the future. Although external actors have undertaken many activities in the aftermath of a military intervention in an attempt to consolidate peace, sufficient attention has not been paid to (re)constructing the state as a capable, effective, and legitimate entity. While (re)constructing the state is only a portion of what needs to be done to bring about a stable, long-term peace, it provides a necessary foundation upon which to structure the other activities. Through her examination of external actions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, Hawk draws 23 lessons, nine of which are applicable to interventions in general and the remaining 14 specific to statebuilding efforts. This study will be of particular interest to scholars, students, and policymakers involved with conflict resolution and international relations.

22

Moeckli, Daniel. Interpretation of the ICESCR. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198825890.003.0004.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has developed a number of methods for interpreting the ICESCR that are often described as ‘special’ and as falling outside the framework of VCLT articles 31–33. However, this chapter argues that the VCLT can accommodate these methods. The real problem with the Committee’s interpretations is not their (il)legality but their (lack of) legitimacy. The Committee seems to equate legitimacy with sufficient State support. Accordingly, it constantly attempts to balance a moral reading of the Covenant with finding common ground among States parties. Yet legitimacy may derive not only from a source, such as State consent, but also from following a process of interpretation that is adequate and fair. For an interpretive practice to be legitimate, the interpreter must, at the very least, adhere to a set of principles, apply these coherently, and lay bare how a particular interpretive outcome is reached.

23

Baur, Dorothea. NGOs as Legitimate Partners of Corporations: A Political Conceptualization. Springer, 2013.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

24

Tallberg, Jonas, Karin Bäckstrand, and Jan Aart Scholte, eds. Legitimacy in Global Governance. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826873.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume: to develop an agenda for systematic and comparative research on legitimacy in global governance. In complementary fashion, the chapters address different aspects of the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. The volume makes four specific contributions. First, it argues for a sociological approach to legitimacy, centered on perceptions of legitimate global governance among affected audiences. Second, it moves beyond the traditional focus on states as the principal audience for legitimacy in global governance and considers a full spectrum of actors from governments to citizens. Third, it advocates a comparative approach to the study of legitimacy in global governance, and suggests strategies for comparison across institutions, issue areas, countries, societal groups, and time. Fourth, the volume offers the most comprehensive treatment so far of the sociological legitimacy of global governance, covering three broad analytical themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

25

Dellmuth, Lisa M. Individual Sources of Legitimacy Beliefs. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0003.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter examines individual-level factors that may influence legitimacy beliefs towards global governance institutions. The chapter surveys the full breadth of existing political science research in order to chart a forward course for empirical studies of individual-level sources of legitimacy beliefs. The chapter’s threefold core argument maintains, first, that global governance scholarship needs to build on previous insights on legitimacy beliefs from comparative politics and social psychology. Second, research on beliefs in the legitimacy of global governance institutions needs to look comparatively across countries, institutions, issue areas, social groups, and time. Third, future research on sources of legitimacy in global governance can acquire better measures through the use of large-scale surveys and survey experiments.

26

Løgstrup, K. E., Bjørn Rabjerg, and Robert Stern. The Ethical Demand. Oxford University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855989.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This book concerns the nature and basis for the fundamental ethical relation between human beings. Beginning from the fundamental example of trust, it is argued that this relation arises from our interdependence and mutual vulnerability, which then gives us power over the lives of other people. It claimed that in this situation, there arises a demand to care for the other person. This demand is characterized as silent, radical, one-sided, and unfulfillable, as it cannot be satisfied by just doing what the other asks; requires us to act unselfishly; is non-reciprocal; and should not be experienced as a demand. As a result, the demand is distinguished from ordinary social norms, which lack these characteristics, though it is argued that there is a relation between these two levels, as legitimate social norms should ‘refract’ the ethical demand. It is also argued that in order to make sense of a demand of this sort, we must see ‘life as a gift’, rather than treating ourselves as the sovereign grounds for our own existence. In understanding the ethical demand in this way, it is suggested, we can make sense of Jesus’s proclamation to love our neighbour in purely human terms, though at the same time we may have to go beyond a scientific picture which operates with a clear distinction between fact and values, and treats determinism as a basis for rejecting moral responsibility.

27

Hassner, Ron E. Conflicts over Sacred Ground. Edited by Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Margo Kitts. Oxford University Press, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199759996.013.0021.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This chapter argues that contested sacred sites pose indivisibility challenges which can drive even natural religious allies into violent conflict, and also outlines the multiple roots of conflicts over sacred sites based on the type of objective at stake: legitimacy, security, or profit. It then turns to investigate several aspects that characterize these disputes, regardless of cause. Sacred sites cannot be shared to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The characteristics of disputes over sacred places include cohesion, boundaries, and value. Leaders have pursued three primary strategies in order to avoid bloodshed: partition, scheduling, and exclusion. These approaches develop tensions that threaten to burst as soon as one of the claimants perceives a change in the balance of power. Religious leaders can introduce flexibility into the rules governing holy places and add a measure of harmony to contests over holy sites.

28

Plowright, William. Armed Groups and International Legitimacy: Child Soldiers in Intra-State Conflict. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

29

Plowright, William. Armed Groups and International Legitimacy: Child Soldiers in Intra-State Conflict. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

30

Plowright, William. Armed Groups and International Legitimacy: Child Soldiers in Intra-State Conflict. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

31

Plowright, William. Armed Groups and International Legitimacy: Child Soldiers in Intra-State Conflict. Taylor & Francis Group, 2021.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

32

Holmes, Roger. Legitimacy and the Politics of the Knowable (RLE Social Theory). Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

33

Schimpfössl, Elisabeth. The Quest for Legitimacy and Superiority. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190677763.003.0004.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

The third chapter asks how the rich account for their wealth in a country where, not long ago, being rich was considered a social crime. It explores the everyday ideologies the rich employ to explain their rise in business and/or politics. My samples includes those who claim in neoliberal fashion that everybody can make it, and those who see their achievements as grounded in their biological superiority. In the course of the 2000s, rich Russians have developed a desire to feel that they deserve their wealth not only because of how cunningly and ruthlessly they have outdone others, but because of their cultural capital, for example as philanthropists. In particular, in response to economic crisis and inequality, some members of the bourgeoisie are developing narratives of legitimacy based on their paternalistic care for the less fortunate, identifying themselves with pre-Revolutionary benefactors or the Soviet welfare state.

34

Ishiyama, John. From Bullets to Ballots: The Transformation of Rebel Groups into Political Parties. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

35

Ishiyama, John. From Bullets to Ballots: The Transformation of Rebel Groups into Political Parties. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

36

Ishiyama, John. From Bullets to Ballots: The Transformation of Rebel Groups into Political Parties. Taylor & Francis Group, 2019.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

37

Ishiyama, John. From Bullets to Ballots: The Transformation of Rebel Groups into Political Parties. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

38

Ishiyama, John. From Bullets to Ballots: The Transformation of Rebel Groups into Political Parties. Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

39

Holmes, Roger. Legitimacy and the Politics of the Knowable. Routledge, 2014.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

40

Cohen, Jean L. Sovereignty, the Corporate Religious, and Jurisdictional/Political Pluralism. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794394.003.0007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

We typically associate sovereignty with the modern state, and the coincidence of worldly powers of political rule, public authority, legitimacy, and jurisdiction with territorially delimited state authority. We are now also used to referencing liberal principles of justice, social-democratic ideals of fairness, republican conceptions of non-domination, and democratic ideas of popular sovereignty (democratic constitutionalism) for the standards that constitute, guide, limit, and legitimate the sovereign exercise of public power. This chapter addresses an important challenge to these principles: the re-emergence of theories and claims to jurisdictional/political pluralism on behalf of non-state ‘nomos groups’ within well-established liberal democratic polities. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the key achievements of democratic constitutionalism and apply them to every level on which public power, rule, and/or domination is exercised.

41

Warnke, Georgia. Legitimate Differences: Interpretation in the Abortion Controversy and Other Public Debates. University of California Press, 1999.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

42

Dellmuth, Lisa, Jan Aart Scholte, Jonas Tallberg, and Soetkin Verhaegen. Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance. Oxford University PressOxford, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192856241.001.0001.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

Abstract Contemporary society has witnessed major growth in global governance, yet the legitimacy of global governance remains deeply in question. This book offers the first full comparative investigation of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. Empirically, it provides a comprehensive analysis of public and elite opinion toward global governance, building on two uniquely coordinated surveys covering multiple countries and international organizations. Theoretically, it develops an individual-level approach, exploring how a person’s characteristics in respect of socioeconomic status, political values, geographical identification, and domestic institutional trust shape legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. The book’s central findings are threefold. First, there is a notable and general elite–citizen gap in legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. While elites on average hold moderately high levels of legitimacy toward international organizations, the general public is decidedly more skeptical. Second, individual-level differences in interests, values, identities, and trust dispositions provide significant drivers of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance, as well as the gap between the two groups. Most important on the whole are differences in the extent to which citizens and elites trust domestic political institutions, which shape how these groups assess the legitimacy of international organizations. Third, both patterns and sources of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs vary across organizations and countries. These variations suggest that institutional and societal contexts condition attitudes toward global governance. The book’s findings shed light on future opportunities and constraints in international cooperation, suggesting that current levels of legitimacy point neither to a general crisis of global governance nor to a general readiness for its expansion.

43

Steiner, Kristian. Strategies for International Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Elite Behaviour in Ethnic Conflicts. Chartwell-Bratt Ltd, 1996.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

44

Cheng, Christine. Diamonds. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199673346.003.0007.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

In Liberia’s diamond sector, the dynamics of the BOPC Group show how diamond mines remain vulnerable to takeover long after war has ended. From mining to taxing to exporting, West African governments have long struggled to control the supply of diamonds within their territories and the physical and social isolation of diamond mining areas has meant that they effectively govern themselves. This geographical buffer gives extralegal groups room to grow, develop organizational structures, and build up local networks of influence. Yet their claims to legitimacy are ultimately rooted in whether their mining activities are classified as legal or illegal, formal or informal, legitimate or illegitimate. Characterizing artisanal diamond mining as an “illicit” activity also feeds into the international community’s desire to sanitize the industry—even at the expense of miners’ livelihoods. This chapter demonstrates that these categorizations are not simply claims of law, but claims of power.

45

Reuchamps, Min, and Didier Caluwaerts. Legitimacy of Citizen-Led Deliberative Democracy. Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

46

Getting the Company to Pay 2007-2008: The Ground Rules for Legitimately Putting Expenses Through Your Business. Indicator Ltd, 2007.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

47

Kochan, Thomas A. Social Legitimacy of the HRM Profession: A US Perspective. Edited by Peter Boxall, John Purcell, and Patrick M. Wright. Oxford University Press, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199547029.003.0029.

Повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Анотація:

This article argues that HR professionals need to treat business strategy as an endogenous variable, be more externally focused and skilled at building networks and productive alliances with other groups and institutions, become more analytical and able to document the benefits associated with effective HR policies and practices to firms and employees, and be skilled at managing in an increasingly transparent society and information savvy workforce. The changing gender composition of the HR profession may affect its success in making these changes and meeting these challenges. Ironically, however, significant change in the status and legitimacy of the HR profession may require a rebalancing of power in employment relations.

48

Holmes, Roger. Legitimacy and the Politics of the Knowable (RLE Social Theory). Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

49

Holmes, Roger. Legitimacy and the Politics of the Knowable (RLE Social Theory). Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

50

Holmes, Roger. Legitimacy and the Politics of the Knowable (Rle Social Theory). Taylor & Francis Group, 2016.

Знайти повний текст джерела

Стилі APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO та ін.

Книги з теми "Legitimate grounds"

Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями