Abstract
When Ukraine’s presidential elections in November 2004 seemed tainted by massive fraud, the European Union and the United States called for a review, implicitly favouring the then opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, against the Kremlin’s preferred man in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovich. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned EU and US criticisms of the elections as ‘inadmissible,’ while a Russian official in the United States deplored the ‘unprecedented interference’ in Ukraine’s domestic affairs.2 Everyone knew that the United States and Russia in this case disagreed over the question of who should lead Ukraine, but the exchange reveals a more general dispute between them about whether and how external governments and organizations can ever legitimately play an interventionary or interfering role in the domestic politics or affairs of another state.
…the liberalism of fear as a strictly political theory is not necessarily linked to any one religious or scientific doctrine…It must reject only those political doctrines that do not recognize any difference between the spheres of the personal and the public.
Judith N. Shklar, Liberalism and the Moral Life1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
J.N. Shklar, ‘The Liberalism of Fear,’ in Liberalism and the Moral Life, N. Rosenblum ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp. 21–38 at p. 24.
N. Paton, ‘Ukraine Crisis Threatens Rift between US and Russia,’ The Guardian, November 24, 2004. http://www.guardian.co.Uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1358199,00.html.
M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 2nd edn (New York: Basic Books, 1992), pp. 51–73.
S.R. Ratner and J.S. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law: Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 225.
W.A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
See, for example, E. Eckholm, ‘Russian Leader Complains of Lack of Respect from U.S.,’ New York Times, 10 December 1999.
H. Charlesworth, ‘Worlds Apart: Public/Private Distinctions in International Law,’ in Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates, Margaret Thornton ed. (Australia: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 243–260 at p. 246.
K. Walker, ‘An Exploration of Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter as an Embodiment of the Public/Private Distinction in International Law,’ International Law and Politics, 26 (1994) 173–199, at 187.
C. Romany, ‘Women as Aliens: A Feminist Critique of the Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law,’ Harvard Human Rights Journal, 6 (1993) 87–125 at 96.
See J.B. Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought, 2nd edn (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
C.A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).
S.M. Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).
C. Pateman, ‘Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy,’ in The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989).
see R. Gavison, ‘Feminism and the Public/Private Distinction,’ Stanford Law Review, 45, 1 (1992) 1–45.
see F.R. Tesón, A Philosophy of International Law (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 157–187.
see A.L. Allen, Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1988).
P. Boling, Privacy and the Politics of Intimate Life (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).
J.W. DeCew, In Pursuit of Privacy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).
See H. Bull, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
See J.L. Cohen, ‘Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law,’ Ethics and International Affairs, 18, 3 (2004) 1–24 at 12.
see M.W. Janis, An Introduction to International Law, 2nd edn (Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1993), p. 2.
H. Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 50.
See Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985), p. 23.
R. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 114.
See D. Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).
H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 165–166.
J.R. Lucas writes, ‘States Without Justice are but Robber Bands Enlarged.’ Lucas, On Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), p. 1.
J. Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart eds (London: Athlone Press, 1970), Chapter 1, Section 4.
See J.J. Rousseau, The Social Contract in The Social Contract and Discourses, G.D.H. Cole trans. (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1988), Book II, Chapter 3, p. 203.
E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, 2nd edn (New York: Harper & Row, 1946), p. 162.
W. Zhong, ‘China’s Human Rights Development in the 1990s,’ The Journal of Contemporary China, 8 (1995) 79–97 at 85.
See T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Markham, Ontario: Penguin, 1986), Chapter 21, p. 271.
H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), p. 197.
N. Bobbio, Democracy and Dictatorship: The Nature and Limits of State Power, P. Kennealy trans. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), p. 10.
see J.A. Swanson, The Public and the Private in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).
R.J. Vincent, Nonintervention and International Order (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 11–12.
S. Hoffmann, ‘The Problem of Intervention,’ in Intervention in World Politics, H. Bull ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 11.
See B. Crick, ‘Sovereignty,’ International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 15 (1968), p. 77.
J. Feinberg, ‘Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Privacy: Moral Ideals in the Constitution?’ The Notre Dame Law Review, 58 (1983) 445–492 at 448.
C.R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, 2nd edn (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 69.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2006 Catherine Lu
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lu, C. (2006). Public and Private: Towards Conceptual Clarification. In: Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics. Global Issues Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299542_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299542_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-28565-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29954-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)