L’impérialisme humanitaire de Michael Ignatieff : le cas d’un « liberal hawk »
Michael Ignatieff, a former Harvard professor who is now active in Canadian politics, represents a school of thought which may be called humanitarian imperialism or liberal imperialism whose most famous representative in Europe is Bernard Kouchner. He argues for US interventions in the world (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) on account of UN weakness and unwillingness to stop massacres or genocides. In his calls for the US to assume this new burden, Ignatieff mentions all the arguments usually invoked against empires and imperialism only to reject them in a rhetorical twist. He is one of the most articulate advocates of military intervention with a clear conscience. Though he often ends up in agreement with neoconservative or neoliberal imperialists his justifications are more intellectual and convoluted and therefore address a different audience.
American Exceptionalism and Human Rights
Chapter 1. Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights by Michael Ignatieff 1 PART I. THE VARIETIES OF EXCEPTIONALISM 27 Chapter 2. The Exceptional First Amendment by Frederick Schauer29 Chapter 3. Capital Punishment and American Exceptionalism by Carol S. Steiker 57 Chapter 4. Why Does the American Constitution Lack Social and Economic Guarantees? By Cass R. Sunstein 90 Chapter 5. America's Jekyll-and-Hyde Exceptionalism by Harold Hongju Koh 111 PART II. EXPLAINING EXCEPTIONALISM 145 Chapter 6. The Paradox of U.S.Human Rights Policy by Andrew Moravcsik 147 Chapter 7. American Exceptionalism, Popular Sovereignty, and the Rule of Law by Paul W. Kahn 198 PART III. EVALUATING EXCEPTIONALISM 223 Chapter 8. American Exceptionalism: The New Version by Stanley Hoffmann 225 Chapter 9. Integrity-Anxiety? by Frank I. Michelman 241 Chapter 10. A Brave New Judicial World by Anne-Marie Slaughter 277 Chapter 11. American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism, and Global Governance by John Gerard Ruggie 304 Contributors 339 Index 341
Accountability perception of Thai Government: to whom and what counts
PurposePublic sector entities face conflicting demands from stakeholders. The literature suggests identifying and prioritizing stakeholders can improve accountability. Thailand, an emerging economy, and currently under military rule, provides an interesting context to investigate stakeholder tensions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why the Thai Government bureaucrats prioritize their stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on the managerial branch of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory to examine the importance of various stakeholders and of the stakeholders’ salient attributes perceived by the Thai Government bureaucrats in discharging its accountability. The study uses a survey questionnaire mailed out to the central government departments in Thailand.FindingsThe study finds that single most important stakeholder is the Office of the Auditor-General. The public is perceived as the second. This is dissimilar to the western-centric accountability focus on the public, and challenges claims by the Thai military coup that it will bring democratic rule. “Legal power” supporting the stakeholders’ claims for government accountability is the most influential attribute in determining stakeholder importance and prioritizing attention for government bureaucrat’s discharge of its accountability.Originality/valueSuch findings increase understanding of the applicability of stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience theory in the context of military rule in emerging economy countries such as Thailand. This paper also provides suggestions of how stakeholders may shape their salience in order to gain priority. This also provides an immediate suggestion for reforms of the Thai regulatory frameworks in prioritizing stakeholders and promoting the government’s greater accountability.