Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLindahl, Hans 
dc.contributor.advisorHerrera, Wilson 
dc.contributor.advisorAugenstein, Daniel 
dc.creatorHernández Zambrano, David 
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-19T14:32:26Z
dc.date.available2022-09-19T14:32:26Z
dc.date.created2022-09
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/36017
dc.descriptionEsta tesis se enmarca en el contexto de las discusiones actuales sobre la justicia global. En concreto, dentro de la tradición filosófica liberal igualitaria. El texto se centra en analizar cómo la justicia social queda excluida del debate sobre la justicia más allá del ámbito doméstico. Propone una crítica de cómo las teorías tradicionales de la justicia y la legitimidad política prescriben al Estado como unidad primaria y única de la justicia social y la cuestión de la posibilidad de una justificación para un abordaje global del problema de la justicia social. Esta tesis se refiere a la protección de los derechos socioeconómicos a nivel global, enfocándose en las brechas entre el manejo nacional e internacional del tema. El desafío, entonces, es cómo lograr tal expansión o creación de un espacio político que pueda hacer disponible la concepción global de justicia necesaria para los derechos sociales. Gran parte del argumento se basa y se refiere a términos de justicia distributiva, ya que las teorías tradicionales han abordado el tema de la justicia socioeconómica. El texto se divide en cuatro capítulos y una conclusión. Este primer capítulo presenta los lineamientos generales de la discusión. El segundo capítulo analiza el rechazo particularista a la expansión del ámbito de la justicia más allá del Estado, mostrando cómo Rawls y Walzer pueden ser tomados como representantes del particularismo en su conjunto, y proponiendo una crítica a la priorización particularista de los derechos civiles y políticos. sobre socioeconomía. dada la creación de indeterminación en la protección de estos últimos. El tercer capítulo muestra que el cuerpo teórico particularista está sujeto a inconsistencias entre los modelos de justicia que prescribe para el ámbito local e internacional, dada la creación de vacíos en el reconocimiento y protección de los derechos y obligaciones de justicia. El capítulo argumenta que las inconsistencias disuelven la distinción entre igualitarismo liberal y libertarismo en la teorización sobre la justicia en la arena internacional. Finalmente, el cuarto capítulo retoma los argumentos de la indeterminación y las lagunas para mostrar cómo justifican la necesidad de superar el particularismo. Hechas estas consideraciones, la tesis termina enunciando brevemente las posibilidades de una teorización más adecuada de la justicia que abarque el dominio global al desplazar la primordialidad absoluta del Estado en las teorías liberales igualitarias de la justicia.
dc.description.abstractThis thesis lies within the context of the current discussions about global justice. Specifically, within the philosophical liberal egalitarian tradition. The text focuses on analyzing how social justice is excluded from the debate about justice beyond the domestic sphere. It proposes a critique of how traditional theories of justice and political legitimacy prescribe the state as the primary and only unit for social justice and on the inquiry into the possibility of a justification for a global approach to the problem of social justice. This thesis refers to the protection of socio-economic rights globally, focusing on the gaps between the domestic and the international handling of the issue. The challenge, then, is how to achieve such a widening or creation of a political space that could make available the global conception of justice necessary for social rights. A great deal of the argument builds from and refers to terms of distributive justice, given how traditional theories have addressed the topic of socioeconomic justice. The text is divided into four chapters and a conclusion. This first chapter presents the general outlines of the discussion. The second chapter analyzes the particularist rejection of the broadening of the scope of justice beyond the state, showing how Rawls and Walzer can be taken as representatives of particularism as a whole, and proposing a critique of the particularist prioritization of civil and political rights over socioeconomic ones, given the creation of indeterminacy in the protection of the latter. The third chapter shows that the particularist body of theory is subject to inconsistencies between the models of justice it prescribes for the local and the international domain, given the creation of loopholes in the recognition and protection of rights and obligations of justice. The chapter argues that the inconsistencies dissolve the distinction between liberal egalitarianism and libertarianism in the theorizations about justice in the international domain. Finally, the fourth chapter takes on the arguments of indeterminacy and loopholes to show how these justify the need for overcoming particularism. Having made these considerations, the thesis ends by briefly stating possibilities for a more apt theorization about justice that embraces the global domain by displacing the absolute primordiality of the state in liberal egalitarian theories of justice.
dc.format.extent189 pp
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.subjectJusticia global
dc.subjectFilosofía
dc.subjectPolítica
dc.subjectDerecho
dc.subjectTeorías de la justicia
dc.subject.ddcDerecho 
dc.titleLiberal egalitarianism beyond the state: dealing with global justice
dc.typemasterThesis
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.creator.degreeDoctor en Derecho
dc.publisher.programDoctorado en Derecho
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Jurisprudencia
dc.subject.keywordGlobal justice
dc.subject.keywordPhilosophy
dc.subject.keywordPolitics
dc.subject.keywordTheories of justice
dc.subject.keywordLegal philosophy
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.type.spaTesis
dc.rights.accesoRestringido (Temporalmente bloqueado)
dc.date.embargoEndinfo:eu-repo/date/embargoEnd/2024-09-19
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAgamben, G. (1998). Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAnderson, E. (1999). What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109, 287–337.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAnderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAron, R. (2003). Peace & war: A theory of international relations. Transaction Publishers.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBarry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Polity.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBauman, Z. (2005). Work, Consumerism, and the New Poor. Open University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBauman, Z. (2011). Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts (Reprint). Polity.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBeitz, C. (2009). The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBeitz, C. R. (1999). Political theory and international relations. Princeton Univ. Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBeitz, C. R. (2004). Human rights and the law of peoples. In D. K. Chatterjee (Ed.), The Ethics
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBlake, M. (2012). Global Distributive Justice: Why Political Philosophy Needs Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-070209-162922
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1986). The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895937
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrennan, J., & Schmidtz, D. (2010, March). The Big Myth About Liberty. Cato Unbound. A Journal of Debate. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/03/10/david-schmidtz-jason-brennan/conceptions-freedom
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrennan, J., & Tomasi, J. (2012). Classical Liberalism. In D. Estlund (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy (pp. 115–132). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrock, G. (Ed.). (2013a). Cosmopolitanism versus non-cosmopolitanism: Critiques, defenses, reconceptualizations. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBrock, G. (2013b). Contemporary Cosmopolitanism: Some Current Issues: Cosmopolitanism. Philosophy Compass, 8(8), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12054
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBuchanan, A. (1992). Self-Determination and the Right to Secede. Journal of International Affairs, 45(2), 347–365. JSTOR.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBuchanan, A. (2007). Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford University Press
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBuchanan, A. (2016). Self-Determination, Revolution, and Intervention. Ethics, 447–473.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCárdenas, J. C., Fergussion, L., & García-Villegas, M. (Eds.). (2021). La quinta puerta. Editorial Planeta Colombiana S.A
dc.source.bibliographicCitationChernilo, D. (2012). Cosmopolitanism and the Question of Universalism. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Cosmopolitan Studies (pp. 47–59). Routledge.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCohen, G. A. (2003). Facts and Principles. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31(3), 211–245. JSTOR.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCohen, G. A. (2008). Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCohen, G. A. (2011). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy (M. Otsuka, Ed.; 1st ed.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691148700.001.0001
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCohen, J. L. (2010). Sovereignty in the Context of Globalization. In S. Besson & J. Tasioulas (Eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (pp. 261–280). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCotterrell, R. (2008). Transnational Communities and the Concept of Law. Ratio Juris, 21, 1–18.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCriado Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women. Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams Inc.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDezalay, Y., & Garth, B. G. (2002). The internationalization of palace wars: Lawyers, economists, and the contest to transform Latin American states. University of Chicago Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDowling, E. (2021). The care crisis: What caused it and how can we end it? (First edition paperback). Verso.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality (4. print). Harvard Univ. Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDworkin, R. (2013). A New Philosophy for International Law. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41(1), 2–30. JSTOR.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationEstlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationEstlund, D. (2017). Prime Justice. In M. Weber & K. Vallier (Eds.), Political Utopias (pp. 35–55). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFeinberg, J. (1970). The Nature and Value of Rights. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 4, 243–257.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFeinberg, J. (1973). Social Philosophy. Prentice-Hall.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFeinberg, J. (1994). Not with My Tax Money the Problem of Justifying Government Subsidies for the Arts. Public Affairs Quarterly, 8(2), 101–123. JSTOR.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFeinberg, J. (2003). Problems at the Roots of Law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195155262.001.0001
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFleischacker, S. (2004). A short history of distributive justice. Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationForst, R. (2001). Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice. Metaphilosophy, 32, 160–179.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFraser, N. (2010). Scales of Justice. Columbia University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFreeman, S. (2001). Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 30(2), 105–151.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFreeman, S. R. (2010). Rawls (Reprinted). Routledge.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFriedman, R. B. (1990). On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy. In J. Raz (Ed.), Authority (pp. 56–91). New York University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGauthier, D. P. (1992). Morals by agreement. Clarendon Pr.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGewirth, A. (1996). The Community of Rights. The University of Chicago Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHansson, S. O. (2010). The Harmful Influence of Decision Theory on Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(5), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-010-9232-0
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHansson, S. O. (2013). The ethics of risk: Ethical analysis in an uncertain world. Palgrave Macmillan.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHart, H. L. A. (1955). Are There Any Natural Rights? The Philosophical Review, 64(2), 175. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182586
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHayek, F. A. (1997). The constitution of liberty (Paperback ed., [Nachdr.]). Univ. of Chicago Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHayek, F. A. von. (2001). The road to serfdom. Routledge.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHeld, D. (2004). Democratic Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 364–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00127.x
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHeld, D. (2005). Principles of cosmopolitan order. In G. Brock & H. Brighouse (Eds.), The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (pp. 10–27). Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHeld, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHermansson, H., & Hansson, S. O. (2007). A Three-Party Model Tool for Ethical Risk Analysis. Risk Management, 9(3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250028
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHernández-Zambrano, D. (2019). Autoridad y legitimación: De vuelta al anarquismo. Areté, 31(1), 26.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHohfeld, W. N. (1917). Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 26(8), 710. https://doi.org/10.2307/786270
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHolmes, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). The cost of rights: Why liberty depends on taxes (1. ed). Norton.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKant, I. (2006). Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace, and history (P. Kleingeld, Ed.; Colclasure, David L., Trans.). Yale University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKant, I., Gregor, M. J., & Timmermann, J. (2011). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals: A German-English edition. Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKant, I., Kleingeld, P., Waldron, J., Doyle, M. W., & Wood, A. W. (2006). Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace, and history. Yale University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationKaul, I., Conceição, P., Le Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. U. (2003). How to Improve the Provision of Public Goods. In Providing Global Public Goods (pp. 23–81). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195157400.001.0001/acprof-9780195157406
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLadenson, R. (1979). Two Kinds of Rights. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 13, 161–172.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLadenson, R. (1990). In a Defense of a Hobbesian Conception of Law. In J. Raz (Ed.), Authority (pp. 32–55). New York University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLetsas, G. (2018). Law and polity: Some philosophical preliminaries. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(4), 1242–1250. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy094
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLindsay, P. (2018). Why outcomes matter: Reclaiming distributive justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2018.1479815
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLocke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government (1st ed). Hackett Pub. Co.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLocke, J. (2003). Two treatises of government: And a letter concerning toleration (I. Shapiro, Ed.). Yale University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMargalit, A. (1996). The decent society. Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMaus, I. (2006). From Nation-State to Global State, or the Decline of Democracy. Constellations, 13, 465–484.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMaus, I. (2010). Kant’s Reasons Against a Global State: Popular Sovereignty as a Principle of international Law. In J. Babić & P. Bojanić (Eds.), & J. Farrel (Trans.), World Governance: Do We Need It, Is It Possible, What Could It (All) Mean? (pp. 150–167). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMidgley, M. (2011). The myths we live by. Routledge.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMiller, D. (1999). Principles of Social Justice. Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMiller, D. (2007). National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMiller, D. (2008). National Responsibility and International Justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11, 383–399.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMiller, D. (2013). Justice for earthlings: Essays in political philosophy. Cambridge Univ. Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMoyn, S. (2018). Not enough: Human rights in an unequal world. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMurphy, L. B., & Nagel, T. (2002). The myth of ownership: Taxes and justice. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00027.x
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationO’Neill, O. (2016). Justice Across Boundaries: Whose Obligations? Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationO’Neill, O. (2020). Justice without Ethics: A Twentieth-Century Innovation? In J. Tasioulas (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law (1st ed., pp. 135–151). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316104439.008
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPisarello, G. (2007). Los derechos sociales y sus garantías: Elementos para una reconstrucción. Editorial Trotta.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPogge, T. (2005). A cosmopolitan perspective on the global economic order. In G. Brock & H. Brighouse (Eds.), The political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (pp. 92–109). Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPogge, T. (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights. Polity.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPogge, T. (2009). Health Care Reform that Works for the U.S. and for the World’s Poor. GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE, II.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPogge, T. W. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/293470
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (1980). Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9),
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (1997). The Idea of Public Reason Revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765–807.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRawls, J. (2002). The Law of Peoples. Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRaz, J. (2009). Authority of Law. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRonzoni, M. (2009). The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice? A Practice-Dependent Account. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37, 229–256.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRonzoni, M. (2013). For (Some) Political and Institutional Cosmopolitanism, (even if) Against Moral Cosmopolitanism. In G. Brock (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism (pp. 156–171). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199678426.003.0008
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRonzoni, M. (2018). Justice, Injustice, and Critical Potential Beyond Borders: A Multi-Dimensional Affair. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35, 90–111.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRousseau, J.-J., Dunn, S., & May, G. (2002). The social contract: And, The first and second discourses. Yale University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSaffon, M. P., & García-Villegas, M. (2011). Derechos sociales y activismo judicial. La dimensión fáctica del activismo judicial en derechos sociales en Colombia. Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, 75–107.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSandel, M. (1982). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets (1st ed). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSandel, M. J. (2020). Tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Penguin Books.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSangiovanni, A. (2007). Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00097.x
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSangiovanni, A. (2008). Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16, 137–164.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSangiovanni, A. (2013). On the Relation Between Moral and Distributive Equality. In G. Brock (Ed.), Cosmopollitanism Versus Non-Cosmopolitanism (pp. 55–74). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Columbia University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSassen, S. (2014). Expulsions. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSassen, S., & Esping-Andersen, G. (2006). Towards a New Welfare State. Scientific Council For Government Policy.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationScanlon, T. (2018). Why does inequality matter? (First edition). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSchmitt, C. (2007). The Concept of the Political. Chicago University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSen, A. (2006). What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238. JSTOR.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSen, A. (2011). The idea of justice (1. Harvard Univ. Press pbk. ed). Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationShapiro, S. J. (2002). Authority. In S. J. Shapiro & J. Coleman (Eds.), The oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law (pp. 382–439). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSimmons, J. (1981). Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSimmons, J. (1999). Justification and Legitimacy. Ethics, 109, 739–771.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSimmons, J. (2001). Justification and Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSimmons, J. (2010). Ideal and Nonideal Theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 38, 5–36.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSsenyonjo, M. (2009). Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law. Hart Publishing.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationStemplowska, Z. (2017). Non-ideal Theory. In K. Lipper-Rasmussen, K. Brownlee, & D. Coady (Eds.), A Companion o Applied Philosophy (pp. 284–296). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationTomasi, J. (2012). Free market fairness. Princeton University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationValentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map: Ideal vs Non-ideal Theory. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00500.x
dc.source.bibliographicCitationValentini, L. (2013). Cosmopolitan Justice and Rightful Enforceability. In G. Brock (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism (pp. 92–107). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199678426.003.0005
dc.source.bibliographicCitationValentini, L. (2017a). On the Messy “Utopophobia vs. Factophobia" Controversy. In M. Weber & K. Vallier (Eds.), Political Utopias (pp. 11–34). Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationValentini, L. (2017b). The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform. European Journal of Political Theory, 1–22.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVincent, A. (1997). Liberal Nationalism and Communitarianism: An Ambiguous Association. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 43, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.1997.tb01375.x
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWaldron, J. (1981). A Right to do Wrong. Ethics, 92, 21–39.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWaldron, J. (1999). Law and Disagreement. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWaldron, J. (2010). Socioeconomic Rights and Theories of Justice. In T. Pogge (Ed.), Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right (Vol. 2, pp. 21–50). UNESCO Publishing.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWaldron, J. (2011). Are Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefit of the International Rule of Law? The European Journal of International Law, 22, 315–343.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWaldron, J. (2018). Dirtying One’s Hands by Sharing a Polity with Others. The Monist, 101(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onx044
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (1981). Philosophy and Democracy. Political Theory, 9(3), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/009059178100900307
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice. A Defense of Justice and Equality. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (1990). The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism. Political Theory, 18(1), 6–23.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (1994). Thick and Thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. University of Notre Dame Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (2004). Politics and passion: Toward a more egalitarian liberalism. Yale University.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (2010). Governing the Globe: What is the best we can do? In J. Babić & P. Bojanić (Eds.), World Governance: Do We Need It, Is It Possible, What Could It (All) Mean? (pp. 47–60). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWalzer, M. (2019). Political action: A practical guide to movement politics. New York Review Books.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWellman, C. H. (2005). Samaritanism and the Duty to Obey the Law. In C. H. Wellman & A. J. Simmons (Eds.), Is There a Duty to Obey the Law (pp. 3–92). Cambridge University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWolff, R. P. (1998). In Defense of Anarchism. University of California Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYoung, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYoung, I. M. (2004). Two concepts of self-determination. In S. May, T. Modood, & J. Squires (Eds.), Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Minority Rights (pp. 176–196). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489235.009
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYoung, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and Gobal Justice: A Social Connnection Model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(01), 102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052506060043
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYoung, I. M. (2007). Global Challenges. Polity Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYoung, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYpi, L. (2008). Political Membership in the Contractarian Defense of Cosmopolitanism. The Review of Politics, 70(03), 442–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670508000569
dc.source.bibliographicCitationYpi, L. (2013). Cosmopolitanism Without If and Without But. In G. Brock (Ed.), Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism (pp. 75–88). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199678426.003.0004
dc.source.bibliographicCitationZimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil (1st ed). Random House.
dc.rights.licenciaEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos.
dc.contributor.gruplacÉtica aplicada, trabajo y cambio social
dc.type.documentTesis
dc.creator.degreetypeFull time
dc.title.TranslatedTitleEl liberalismo igualitario más allá del Estado: dando cuenta de la justicia global
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.creator.degreeLevelDoctorado
local.asignardoino
local.department.reportFacultad Jurisprudencia


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

 

Línea de atención a estudiantes: (601) 297 0200 opción 3 y 1 I Calle 12C Nº 6-25 - Bogotá D.C. Colombia.