We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 3 highlights several instances of State practice where the reciprocity paradigm continues to influence belligerent reprisals. Its bearing emerges from those formalizations of the mechanism that stress the purpose of restoring the balance in rights and obligations unduly disturbed by a breach of the laws of armed conflict. The chapter will first retrace this interest in several positions expressed by States before, during, and in the aftermath of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference that led to the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will then focus on the provisions of military manuals, with a particular focus on US practice and the latest Department of Defense Law of War Manual. Finally, it will provide an extensive and, under many respects, unprecedented analysis of the Italian case-law on World War II atrocities: this judicial practice, which has been revived only recently, has brought to the fore several elements that are strongly associated with reciprocity. The chapter will thus highlight notable examples in which the reciprocity paradigm contributes to defining the purpose and function of belligerent reprisals.
In Chapter 4, the Iran–Iraq War (1980–88) serves as a case-study to test (and ultimately refute) a purely enforcement-based formalization of belligerent reprisals. In the field of chemical warfare, reciprocity and enforcement are shown to converge (rather than exclude each other) in the operationalization of belligerent reprisals. Reciprocity is seen as inspiring both the purposes associated with the measure (restoring the balance of rights and obligations and countering unlawful military advantage) and the specific traits that it would take (in-kind breach). In the "war of the cities", belligerents resorted to reprisals with purposes that cannot be encapsulated in the enforcement paradigm. These included the function of ensuring equality of opportunities (as a form of negative reciprocity) and that of strengthening, enacting and agreeing on new standards of conduct when the specific content of applicable rules was not clear or settled (as an aspect of positive reciprocity). As a result, belligerent reprisals appear as a highly flexible tool by which parties to an armed conflict bargain, approve or refuse, and police the concrete legal framework governing wartime interactions.
Chapter 1 places the institution of belligerent reprisals in relation with the two conceptual frameworks of reciprocity and enforcement. First, it sketches the trajectories by which international law has approached the phenomenon of belligerent reprisals, identifying extant prohibitions and clarifying the requirements for their lawful adoption. After recalling outstanding questions in the international regulation of the mechanism, it describes the two paradigms that legal theory could draw from to conceptualize belligerent reprisals. On the one hand stands reciprocity, as embodied chiefly in the termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach; on the other, the paradigm of enforcement as manifested in countermeasures. Having described their main tenets, the chapter shows how these two blueprints, despite co-existing in the early theories on belligerent reprisals, have come to be seen as mutually exclusive, thereby offering two clearly distinct alternatives for the following formalization of the purpose and function of the mechanism.
Chapter 6 inquires into the legality and purposes of belligerent reprisals in non-international armed conflict. At the outset, it delves into the travaux préparatoires of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions to overcome the paucity of black-letter provisions on belligerent reprisals in this type of conflicts and identify relevant practice indicating which reprisals are prohibited (and which are permissible). Then, it looks into the work of several fact-finding commissions, mandated investigations and expert bodies addressing situations of non-international armed conflict (including those in Myanmar, South Sudan, Yemen and Syria) to gauge their formalization of the mechanism. The re-instatement of reciprocity in the functioning of belligerent reprisals emerges clearly from the purpose of evening out the legal and substantive imbalance brought about by enemy breaches. This analysis results in a novel understanding of belligerent reprisals as a tool concerned with the overall equilibrium in the legal relationship between parties to the conflict and aimed at remedying their inequality of status.
This chapter contributes an ethnographic case study on the creation of international tax norms at the OECD during the ‘Base Erosion Profit Shifting’ initiative. I argue that what makes countries share taxing rights and multinational corporations give money, as in tax to specific jurisdictions and not to others, is not necessarily this ‘natural’ law of reciprocity, but changes to the dominant modes of relatedness, conversation, and presence in international tax norms. Tax scholars, but also recent anthropological studies on tax, explore taxes against a gift-exchange logic. I suggest that this conceptual obsession with mutual interest, return, and benefits obscures the fact that taxes are often unilateral monetary transactions. More generally, it overlooks the human capacity to give and provide, under specific conditions, without calculating or receiving something in return. While taxation is not a form of sharing, I argue that it is productive to pay attention to the many similarities between these two types of transfers. They share, at times as I show in the chapter, more commonalities than taxation and reciprocal gift exchanges, and there are moments when taxation facilitates and enables sharing.
This chapter explores how notions of reciprocity shape new fiscal subjectivities in Ghana’s capital Accra. Drawing on historical sources, public debates and observations in public tax forums, I first discuss the long-term dynamics of ‘tax bargaining’ in Ghana since the colonial times, premised on power holders providing sufficient evidence of recipocity and return for tax payments. Secondly, this chapter provides a portrait of the intimate stakes of reciprocity between the state and citizens that characterize the process of becoming a taxpayer. By zooming in on the aspirations of a single female trader who went through the bureaucratic journey of formalizing her business and becoming a taxpayer, I propose the notion of the “nurturing state” to illustrate the intimate, personalized qualities of reciprocity that characterise emerging fiscal subjectivities in Ghana.
This book challenges the traditional understanding of belligerent reprisals as a mechanism aimed at enforcing the laws of armed conflict. By re-instating reciprocity at the core of belligerent reprisals, it construes them as tools designed to re-calibrate the legal relationship between parties to armed conflict and pursue the belligerents' equality of rights and obligations in both a formal and a substantive sense. It combines an inquiry into the conceptual issues surrounding the notion of belligerent reprisals, with an analysis of State and international practice on their purpose and function. Encompassing international and non-international armed conflicts, it provides a first comprehensive account of the role of reprisals in governing legal interaction during wartime, and offers new grounds to address questions on their applicability, lawfulness, regulation, and desirability. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.
International human rights as a legal regime is founded on the premise that the State is both the violator and the protector of the same set of rights. Universal positivism is the effort to eliminate the internal contradiction embedded within the heart of human rights law. This is done by creating international legal regimes that break through the sovereign veil of States for the benefit of the individuals within the States. This is a benevolent authoritarian move since international human rights treaties cannot be adjusted or addressed by the democratic will of its rights-holding subjects. Universal positivism’s focus on the State as the object of suspicion obscures the intrinsic dependency on the State for the actualizations of said rights, and how a democratic legal order will protect the individuals within the State in ways that international human rights cannot.
from
Part I
-
The Philosophy and Methodology of Experimentation in Sociology
Davide Barrera, Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy,Klarita Gërxhani, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,Bernhard Kittel, Universität Wien, Austria,Luis Miller, Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council,Tobias Wolbring, School of Business, Economics and Society at the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg
The discipline of sociology focuses on interactions and group processes from the perspective of emergent phenomena at the social level. Concepts like social embedding, norms, group-level motivation, or status hierarchies can only be defined and conceptualized in contexts in which individuals are involved in social interaction. Such concepts share the property of being social facts that cannot be changed by individual intention alone and that require some element of individual adjustment to the socially given condition. Sociologists study the embeddedness of individual motivations or preferences in the context of social phenomena as such and the impact of these phenomena on individual adaptation. However, these phenomena can only be observed in individual human behavior, and this tension between the substantive focus on the aggregate level and the analytical focus on the individual level is the challenge that sociological experiments confront.
Geriatric depression results in additional difficulties for older people and their residing society. The case-control study intended to assess the association between cognitive social capital and depression in rural older people.
Methods
We conducted this study from January to December 2020 among 420 rural tenants aged ≥60 years in Bangladesh. We enrolled 210 older persons with depression as cases and another 210 without depression as controls. We used a semi-structured questionnaire, the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), and a cluster sampling technique to collect data through face-to-face interviews. We performed quality control checks and followed all ethics guidelines.
Findings
Geriatric depression had a significant association with gender (p = 0.006), marital status (p < 0.001), education (p < 0.001), occupation (p = 0.001), family type (p < 0.001), family size (p < 0.001), number of family members (p < 0.001), and monthly family income (p < 0.001) of the rural older adults. Both interpersonal trust (p < 0.001) and reciprocity (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with geriatric depression. The older adults who didn’t believe in interpersonal trust (OR = 6.8, p = 0.002) and who disagreed with reciprocity (OR = 31.1, p < 0.001) were more likely to have depression.
Implications
The study findings can contribute to formulating cognitive social capital policy and interventions to promote the psychological well-being of rural older people by alleviating geriatric depression.
Most US lawsuits involving Chinese companies are initiated by or against their customers, employees, or business counterparts. However, on occasion, Chinese investors may go to court against a US government entity to resolve a dispute. As US–China relations continue to deteriorate, Chinese companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire of the geopolitical rivalry. Being suspected as agents for the Chinese state, China-headquartered multinational companies, especially those with ties to the Chinese government, have expressed growing frustration over what they perceive as unfair treatment by the US government. This chapter examines the legal reactions of Chinese companies to perceived official bias in the United States in the context of intensifying geopolitical tensions.
Chapter Three explores the views of former officials regarding compliance by states with international law. Almost all former officials believed that international law constrains state behavior, at least to some extent, and that states comply with international law much of the time. The top positive factors favoring compliance, as revealed by frequency counts, were reputational concerns; state interest in a stable legal and institutional system; reciprocity, or the prospect of retaliation; ethical considerations, including ethical values underlying international law rules and respect for the rule of law; idiosyncratic factors, including the history and culture of states; and benefits flowing from participation in specific regimes. The significant role of ethical factors gives a boost to normative theories about compliance. The role of systemic interests illustrates the benefits of a multilateral, institutional, and rule-based system. Among the factors militating against compliance, the dominant factor was state interest. Many former officials suggested that decisions about compliance involve a cost–benefit assessment, a consideration of many factors including international law. The chapter concludes by considering the former officials’ perceptions about the reasons that states outside of the United States take into consideration regarding compliance with international law.
The chapter proposes a concept of justice for future people that is mindful of Indigenous critiques of the Anthropocene and associated climate horror scenarios. I first review these critiques, which suggest that motivating pro-futural care by dreading an impending climate crisis tends to betray a privileged, often settler-colonial perspective. On this basis, I then review various Indigenous accounts of intergenerational relations, in which I find one common idea in the claim that present generations owe to descendants in part because they received a gift from ancestors. I seek to model and defend this view and its social ontology (I call it “asymmetrical reciprocity”). I then seek to show how asymmetrical reciprocity can help to decolonize the future by disallowing a linear view of time according to which a focus on the future permits the neglect of the past. Hence, climate ethics and intergenerational justice must face the history of colonialism.
This paper revisits the concept of reasonabilism, which subsumes a form of reconfiguration of an holistic conception of consciousness in a manner that ties contingent rational expressions or the principle of consistency to corresponding enabling sets of affectivities and conatus (degrees of beneficence or their negation as contained in volitional states) and vice versa, such that they become two sides of the same coin. The paper explores the basis of reasonability and reasonabilism in African thought, showing that African thought is not as long on the formal radial scale as it is deep on the substantive relational scale, including the relationalities and sociality of pure consciousness (self-reflecting intensionality, its representations and levels of reality) and the implications of these for the scale and depth of conceptions of justice, especially intergenerational justice as it relates to the environment and development generally. Contemporary Africa faces the challenge of retaining and deepening the conatal depth of beneficence in its Indigenous philosophical resources and heritage while expanding its radial of consistency to meet the global challenges of looming environmental disaster and the question of environmental sustainability, poverty, disease, etc. This paper also tries to point towards the necessary reconceptualization and reinvigorations that would further enrich African thought along the required lines.
Edited by
Jeremy Koster, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig,Brooke Scelza, University of California, Los Angeles,Mary K. Shenk, Pennsylvania State University
Humans are complexly social and exceptionally cooperative. Human behavioral ecology has been successful by explaining small-scale dyadic cooperative interactions like food sharing using standard theoretical perspectives of kin selection and reciprocity. Such models have been enhanced with additional ideas including mutualism, partner choice, costly signaling, competitive altruism, and biological market theory. Concepts such as stake, interdependence, and need-based support have provided additional predictive power. While these tools have been effective at explaining face-to-face cooperative relationships, their inability to explain the large, complex social groupings typical of human societies has led researchers to look to new models of multilevel and cultural group selection theory for solutions. Culture plays a key role in structuring human sociality and facilitating group selection by reducing behavioral variation within groups while increasing variation among groups. Gene-culture coevolution can favor psychological propensities like conformist bias that assort people into symbolically marked groups of trusted partners with shared identities and normative ways of organizing cooperative life. Societies whose cumulative culture maintain institutions that encourage magnanimity and coordination between members achieve collective action benefits unobtainable otherwise and outcompete other groups whose institutions fail to organize their members in ways that lead to cooperative outcomes at scale.
Men’s and women’s work fueled the increasingly sophisticated goods Aztecs produced and the large amounts of trade conducted and tribute paid by Aztecs. While much labor was performed at the household level, workshops grew in number. Craft production became more complex as population increased, political organization became more elaborate, and demand for goods increased. The increasing output of producers and growing number of commercial endeavors by merchants underwrote an increasingly rigid hierarchy. Women’s cooking and weaving fed and clothed ordinary families, Aztec armies, and royal palaces. The special province of women of all social levels, weaving created the most common and among the most valuable of tribute items, woven cloth. Other important forms of production included mining obsidian and making it into tools. Pottery production was crucial for cooking, eating, and carrying and using water among other uses. Both food producers and craftspeople, often one and the same, sold their wares in local markets. Economic descriptions often focus on long-distance trading by the pochteca and oztomeca (long-distance and spying merchants), but trading ranged from producer-sellers, selling goods in local marketplaces to the more illustrious pochteca and oztomeca. Those merchants traveled to distant regions to obtain luxury goods.
Katerina Teaiwa explores the relationship between embodied knowledges, indigenous identity, and place-making in South Pacific dancing. Her studies, training, and experience highlight the issues of how to decolonize something without decolonizing its form. Teaiwa demonstrates how dance is embodied and emplaced for Indigenous people of the Pacific islands: her own Banaban, I-Kiribati, and African American heritage influences her approach, pedagogy, and values rooted in kinship, reciprocity, and a deep connection to land and sea. Methods and means for experiencing this epistemology are shared through exhibition curation.
● Darwin invented the concept of group selection to explain the evolution of traits that lead individuals to improve the fitnesses of others at a fitness cost to self. Such traits are now called “altruistic.” ● Understanding Simpson’s paradox is key to understanding how natural selection can cause altruism to increase in frequency in a meta-population. ● A criterion is derived for when altruism is fitter than selfishness in a meta-population in which there are groups of size 2. The relevance of correlation and genealogical relatedness to the evolution of altruism is discussed, as is the question of whether reciprocal altruism is really a form of selfishness. ● The concepts of cultural group selection and species selection require further refinements in how group fitness needs to be understood. ● In addition to individual selection and group selection, there is a third unit of selection – intragenomic conflict. Meiotic drive is a classic example. ● The reductionist thesis that group and individual selection reduce to selection on genes is criticized, as are conventionalist theses that assert that it is a matter of convenience, not biological fact, whether group selection occurs in a population.
Forced choices between rescuing imperilled persons are subject to a presumption of equality. Unless we can point to a morally relevant difference between these persons' imperilments, each should get an equal chance of rescue. Sometimes, this presumption is overturned. For example, when one imperilled person has wrongfully caused the forced choice, most think that this person (rather than an innocent person) should bear the harm. The converse scenario, in which a forced choice resulted from the supererogatory action of one of the imperilled people, has received little attention in distributive ethics. I argue that, sometimes, we need not offer equal chances in these cases either. When the supererogatory act places the initially imperilled person under a reciprocal duty to bear risks for the supererogatory agent's sake in the forced choice, we may fulfil this duty for them if they are unable to do it themselves, by favouring the supererogatory agent.