Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Unity of the Common Law: Studies in Hegelian Jurisprudence

University of California Press (1995)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Punishment: Consequentialism.David Wood - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):455-469.
    Punishment involves deliberating harming individuals. How, then, if at all, is it to be justified? This, the first of three papers on the philosophy of punishment (see also 'Punishment: Nonconsequentialism' and 'Punishment: The Future'), examines attempts to justify the practice or institution according to its consequences. One claim is that punishment reduces crime, and hence the resulting harms. Another is that punishment functions to rehabilitate offenders. A third claim is that punishment (or some forms of punishment) can serve to make (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Corporate Social Work or ‘Being’ Empowered and ‘Doing’ Empowerment: Preface to a Discourse Ethical Monitoring of the Capability Approach.Arnab Chatterjee - 2011 - Journal of Human Values 17 (2):161-170.
    Is there a corporate social work? Do business corporations as a part of their ‘social responsibility’ aim to socially empower the community by enhancing their basic ‘capability’ registers? While the newly acquired critical conscience has made social work ethics self-reflexive and thus interrogative about a lot of concept-metaphors taken for granted in traditional social work discourse, the language of ‘empowerment’ seems to have still bullied this apocalyptic, experimental eye. All the negative effects of power are lost in the blood of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Reflections on Punishment from a Global Perspective: An Exploration of Chehtman’s The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment.Margaret Martin - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (3):693-712.
    In this review essay, I offer reflections on three themes. I begin by exploring Alejandro Chehtman’s expressed methodological commitments. I argue that his views move him closer to Lon Fuller and away from the thin accounts offered by HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Moreover, to make sense of his views, he must offer a more normatively robust theory of law. Second, I turn to his use of Raz’s theory of authority. I argue that Chehtman fails to distinguish between Raz’s views (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark