Search

If the legal foundation and political consensus underpinning United Nations resolutions suggests that North Korea's denuclearization can be understood as a just cause, were the means used by the Un...

The problem of child labor is worse in Myanmar than nearly anywhere else in the world. Moreover, unlike in many other countries where this practice occurs, in Myanmar, child labor is conducted open...

In an era where internationalism is on the retreat in the Western world, a modified version of Rosa Luxemburg’s thinking about internationalism can serve as a useful guide for those concerned about relations between peoples in different countries. Luxemburg contributes to existing internationalist, cosmopolitan and transnational approaches by offering a unique set of answers to questions about the appropriate ethics, political project and tools to be adopted. Her ethical stance of the universal worth of all people was informed both by a deep sense of empathy and her theoretical analysis of capitalism. She believed that citizens had a duty to hold their governments accountable for foreign policy and that the world formed a single system and community. The political project was one of radical transformation and equality. European nations faced the option of transforming into more egalitarian and peaceful societies or descending into barbarism. Central to this transformation was a constant struggle against militarism and imperialism. Key tools for transformation included mass mobilisation, vibrant democratic debate and revolutionary reform of the political system. Problematic aspects of Luxemburg’s internationalism that require revision include her insensitivity to the importance of national identity and Eurocentrism.

The establishment of international ethics committees started in the 1980s in Europe concomitant with the worldwide expansion of bioethics thus acknowledging the importance of having common bioethical standards in different countries and contributing to the validity and credibility of global bioethics.

In the past several decades, due to the severe shortage of transplantable organs, organ procurement from executed prisoners have been used to transplant organs, which goes against international ethics standards. As of January 2015, China phased out the use of executed prisoner organs and embarked on its transplant reform. Since then, many efforts have been made to meet the international ethics guidelines on organ transplants. In this study, we aim to elaborate on the status quo of organ procurement from executed prisoners from the perspective of ethics and law. Although China has made great progress in organ donation and transplantation, some Western transplant surgeons and bioethicists still hold outdated views on organ donation and transplantation in China, which will not bring any benefits to its development and will alienate it from the international transplant community. In this study, we propose that both the international transplant society and Chinese transplant community, with mutual cooperation and trust, should jointly make efforts to advance the development of organ donation and transplantation in China. Resumen En las últimas décadas, debido a la grave escasez de órganos trasplantables, la obtención de órganos de presos ejecutados se ha utilizado para trasplantar órganos, lo que contraviene las normas éticas internacionales. A partir de enero de 2015, China eliminó gradualmente el uso de órganos de prisioneros ejecutados y se embarcó en su reforma de trasplantes. Desde entonces, se han realizado muchos esfuerzos para cumplir con las directrices éticas internacionales sobre trasplantes de órganos. En este estudio, nuestro objetivo es profundizar en el status quo de la obtención de órganos de presos ejecutados desde la perspectiva de la ética y la ley. Aunque China ha logrado un gran progreso en la donación y el trasplante de órganos, algunos cirujanos de trasplantes y bioéticos occidentales todavía tienen opiniones obsoletas sobre la donación y el trasplante de órganos en China, lo que no traerá ningún beneficio para su desarrollo y lo alejará de la comunidad internacional de trasplantes. En este estudio, proponemos que tanto la sociedad internacional de trasplantes como la comunidad china de trasplantes, con cooperación y confianza mutuas, deben hacer esfuerzos conjuntos para avanzar en el desarrollo de la donación y el trasplante de órganos en China. Resumo Nas últimas décadas, devido à grave escassez de órgãos transplantáveis, a obtenção de órgãos de prisioneiros executados tem sido usada para o transplante de órgãos, o que vai contra padrões éticos internacionais. A partir de janeiro de 2015, a China eliminou o uso de órgãos de prisioneiros executados e lançou sua reforma em transplantes. Desde então, muitos esforços foram feitos para satisfazer diretrizes éticas internacionais sobre transplantes de órgãos. Nesse estudo, nós pretendemos estudar o status quo da obtenção de órgãos de prisioneiros executados desde uma perspectiva da ética e da lei. Embora a China tenha feito grandes progressos em doação e transplante de órgãos, alguns cirurgiões de transplantes e bioeticistas ocidentais ainda mantém visões desatualizadas sobre doação e transplante de órgãos na China, as quais não trarão quaisquer benefícios para seu desenvolvimento e irão aliená-las da comunidade de transplantes internacional. Nesse estudo, nós propomos que tanto a sociedade de transplante internacional e a comunidade de transplante chinesa, com cooperação e confiança mútuas, deveriam empreender esforços conjuntos para avançar o desenvolvimento de doação e transplante de órgãos na China.

Background In February 2020, international controversy arose about the ethical acceptability of the WHO Malaria Vaccine Implementation Program (MVIP). Whereas some have argued that this program must be seen as research that is not in line with international ethical standards, notably regarding informed consent and local ethical review, some WHO representatives consider the MVIP as a public health implementation program that need not adhere to these standards. Methods We performed a case analysis in light of the 2016 CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research involving Humans. Findings We argue that the MVIP has a substantial research component, and that it is prudent to therefore apply ethical norms for research involving humans, such as the CIOMS guidelines. Accordingly, we agree that the ethical requirements of informed consent and independent ethical review have not been met. In addition, we are concerned that the study might not meet CIOMS’s social value requirement. Recommendations We urge WHO to release more details about the process that led to the MVIP program and make the MVIP protocol publicly available. The full protocol should be assessed by the relevant ethics committees, new and already enrolled parents should be informed about the uncertainties under investigation and given a real opportunity to consent or refuse (continued) participation, communities should be engaged, and aspects of MVIP that require alteration in light of ethical review should be altered, if possible. Furthermore, in order to improve good ethical practices, it is necessary to engage in international debate regarding the integration of research and public health programs. Procedurally, vaccine implementation programs that combine both prevention and research should involve the wider international ethics community and ensure participation of the target populations in setting the proper conditions for launching such programs.

The purpose of the article is to conceptualize economic sanctions in terms of international power politics. Legal and economic literature study sanctions by means of legal norms analysis and their impact on economies, companies and corporations. However, this approach misses a political component, specially the one of coercion to comply with international norms or requirements of sanctions’ initiators. Usually sanctions are an instrument of economically advanced states vis a vis developing countries with fragile or vulnerable economy. The very essence of sanctions is determined by the asymmetry of international system in terms of economic capabilities. Such an asymmetry fuels a debate between those who consider sanctions as an effective and legitimate instrument (US, EU and other developed states) and those who believe that only the UN Security Council can be a legal source of sanctions, while others are illegal (supported by Russia, China and several dozens of developing countries). This debate reflects a cleavage on a more fundamental problem – the one of sovereignty and the right to interfere into sovereign affairs of states. Recognition of sanctions’ legitimacy would mean the recognition of the right to interfere into sovereign affairs of the target-states beyond the UN Charter. The article provides a reflection of this debate, stressing on different interpretations of the concept of sanctions. The article makes a distinction between the concept of sanctions and the concept of trade wars. Such disengagement is critically important for understanding sanctions as a political concept. If trade wars are conducted to maximize profits, economic sanctions are used to achieve political goals. This determines the fundamental difference in the relations between business and government: in the case of trade wars, business is the main lobbyist for decisions of state bodies, in case of sanctions, the government is the initiator, and business is forced to adapt to the current situation. In the first case, business acts as a subject, in the second - as an object.

Taiwan and Kurdistan appear to have little in common, but the progressive values of these two societies embedded within hostile regions make them both natural allies and important strategic assets in the U.S.’s and international community’s long-term fight against authoritarianism and radical religious theocracies. Instead, they have been ignored and/or exploited in the pursuit of short-term geopolitical and economic interests in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, which comes at great cost to American and international values as well as long-term strategic interests, so both citizens and policymakers must consider new approaches.

The article examines a new institution of international law that has taken shape since the beginning of the 21st century: the responsibility to protect. This responsibility is interpreted in the light of theories of international relations and international ethics. In the article, analytical and descriptive research methods have been applied. While the relatively new institution of the responsibility to protect has, due to its importance, gained fairly widespread acceptance in the international community, it has also been criticised as too difficult to implement. Nevertheless, it deserves our attention as the most radical programme legitimising actions taken under the auspices of the United Nations to protect the civilian population when it is facing threat.

This letter examines the ethics of a “sting” paper submitted by Dr. Albana Berisha Qehaja, a faculty member of the Department of Management and Informatics, Faculty of Economy, University of Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo. In that paper, which stung this journal, IJRBS, Dr. Qehaja created a fake paper, with a fake name and fake institutional affiliation, as well as specially crafted email and ORCID accounts to masquerade the identity of the true author of the fake paper, namely Dr. Qehaja. Such behavior is not only an act of extreme scholarly malpractice, it is one of the most unethical behaviors in academic publishing because it violates all of the journal’s and international ethics’ practices for submission of a paper to a journal. Other academics thinking of employing such unethical tactics for any publishing-related objective should reconsider their options and carefully calculate the ethical, legal, and possibly criminal consequences of such actions

This chapter examines how we should think about ethics, starting with three framing questions: Do states and their citizens have significant moral duties to the members of other countries? Should states and their militaries be morally constrained in the conduct of war? Who is morally responsible for the alleviation of global poverty? The chapter proceeds by defining ethics and considering three significant and difficult ethical issues entailed by globalization: cosmopolitanism, statism, and realist ethics. It concludes by examining the ethical dimensions of global poverty and just war. Two case studies are presented, one dealing with the ethics of global warming and the other with the use of drones to carry out targeted assassinations. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that asks whether states should be morally free to reject as many immigrants, including refugees, as they choose.

The debate about justice in immigration seems somehow stagnated given that it seems justice requires both further exclusion and more porous borders. In the face of this, I propose to take a step back and to realize that the general problem of borders&mdash, to determine what kind of borders liberal democracies ought to have&mdash, gives rise to two particular problems: first, to justify exclusive control over the administration of borders (the problem of legitimacy of borders) and, second, to specify how this control ought to be exercised (the problem of justice of borders). The literature has explored the second but ignored the first. Therefore, I propose a different approach to the ethics of immigration by focusing on concerns of legitimacy in a three-step framework: first, identifying the kind of authority or power that immigration controls exercise, second, redefining borders as international and domestic institutions that issue that kind of power, and finally, considering supranational institutions that redistribute the right to exclude among legitimate borders.

The theme of the 10th Annual Research Ethics Conference organized by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (2018) was "Evolution of Research Ethics in Uganda and the Region: Past, Present and Future". We were asked to address the topic: "The History of CIOMS and the recent changes in the international ethics guidelines: implications for local research". The thrust of the conference was to track progress in ensuring ethical conduct of research, highlight challenges encountered, and to propose strategies for effective and meaningful implementation of international ethical guidelines in local contexts. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to comment on the implications of the history of CIOMS ethical guidelines and suggest strategies for their effective and meaningful implementation in the East African region, and perhaps the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. Inferring from the 'evolutionary', 'flexible', and 'general' nature of the CIOMS guidelines, we proposed a six-point strategy for ensuring their effective and meaningful implementation in local contexts. This strategy is in the form of obligations for local research regulators and researchers, the fulfillment of which will go a long way towards their smooth and meaningful implementation in local contexts. These obligations are: ensuring evidence-based adaptation of each individual guideline; ensuring sufficiently judicious and motivated RECs membership; acting proactively to ensure harmony between bioethics and local legal regimes; cultivating a 'bioethics culture' among the public; moving towards regional bioethics governance; and playing an active and meaningful role in future revisions of these guidelines.

Joseph Schumpeter's Sociology of Imperialisms, which was published in 1919, makes a coherent and sustained argument concerning the pacifying effects of liberal institutions and principles. The discrepancy between the warlike history of liberal states and Schumpeter's pacifistic expectations highlights some extreme assumptions. Liberal states invade weak nonliberals states and display exceptional degrees of distrust in their dealings with powerful nonliberal states. The historical liberal legacy is laden with popular wars fought to promote freedom, protect private property, or support liberal allies against nonliberal enemies. Immanuel Kant's liberal internationalism, Macniaveui's liberal imperialism, and Schumpeter's liberal pacifism rest on fundamentally different views on the nature of humans, the state, and international relations. Internationally, free speech and the effective communication of accurate conceptions of the political life of foreign peoples are essential to establish and preserve the understanding on which the guarantee of respect depends.

A growing number of states including Canada, Norway and Sweden have adopted gender and feminist-informed approaches to their foreign and security policies. The overarching aim of this article is to advance a theoretical framework that can enable a thoroughgoing study of these developments. Through a feminist lens, we theorise feminist foreign policy arguing that it is, to all intents and purposes, ethical and argue that existing studies of ethical foreign policy and international conduct are by and large gender-blind. We draw upon feminist International Relations (IR) theory and the ethics of care to theorise feminist foreign policy and to advance an ethical framework that builds on a relational ontology, which embraces the stories and lived experiences of women and other marginalised groups at the receiving end of foreign policy conduct. By way of conclusion, the article highlights the novel features of the emergent framework and investigates in what ways it might be useful for future analyses of feminist foreign policy. Moreover, we discuss its potential to generate new forms of theoretical insight, empirical knowledge and policy relevance for the refinement of feminist foreign policy practice.

How do members of the general public come to regard some uses of violence as legitimate and others as illegitimate? And how do they learn to use widely recognised normative principles in doing so such as those encapsulated in the laws of war and debated by just war theorists? This article argues that popular cinema is likely to be a major source of influence especially through a subgenre that I call ‘Just War Cinema’. Since the 1950s, many films have addressed the moral drama at the centre of contemporary Just War Theory through the figure of the enemy in the Second World War, offering often explicit and sophisticated treatments of the relationship between thejus ad bellumand thejus in bellothat anticipate or echo the arguments of philosophers. But whereas Cold War-era films may have supported Just War Theory’s ambitions to shape public understanding, a strongly revisionary tendency in Just War Cinema since the late 1990s is just as likely to thwart them. The potential of Just War Cinema to vitiate efforts to shape wider attitudes is a matter that both moral philosophers and those concerned with disseminating the law of war ought to pay close attention to.

The evaluation of competency in the field of psychology has gained international attention in recent years. Focusing on international competencies can promote high standards of care and identify common values of the profession. However, there is little research regarding international perceptions of competency. Examining ethics codes from different countries can highlight international standards of competent practice, as ethics codes outline professional expectations of the field. The current study compared the ethics standards found in 47 codes of ethics representing 51 countries. Seventeen competency standards emerged after ethics codes were analyzed. Implications for the international practice of psychology are discussed.

It is almost a truism that "religion is back" in international relations. Those of us concerned with religion and international ethics, however, have worked to expose and interrogate the barely hidden anxieties and ethical assumptions that continue to underpin this return and shape scholarship. This chapter discusses some of the important issues and questions that can be opened up with a broader focus. It is important to recognize that assumptions about religious ethics in international politics continue to reflect the concerns of the "secularization thesis," which asserted for decades that modernization, and hence progress, could only occur with the "progressive" secularization of states and societies around the world. The Ethics and International Relations Handbook sets out parameters for important components of the innovative work, while also recalling aspects of ongoing debates that require continued or further excavation and examination.

This chapter examines the issues – the environment and non-human, the decolonial challenge and unexceptional slow violence –. It begins with the environment, as this is often presented as the most urgent and catastrophic challenge to life itself. Environmental degradation and climate change are challenges to which international ethics must respond, and yet beyond Green theory it is unsurprising that it has yet to do so in a convincing or sustained way. It is normal practice to commence any writing on the environment and climate change with a set of scary statistics. The post- or decolonial challenge is the issue that ethics and international relations (IR) will increasingly need to confront. This language of 'challenges' and 'confrontation' between international ethics and post-/decolonialism is obviously profoundly problematic, as it implies these are two separate and internally homogenous fields of inquiry, encountering each other only on level terrain.

Using the Tylerian objectives-based approach as a reference point, this research paper aims to unravel the links between the ethical evaluations in business compared to that in education. This is made possible through the use of the internationally recognized and listed Canadian standards. For education: the Canadian Evaluation Society, BC Ministry of Education, and Teachers Regulation Branch are referenced. For business, the International Ethics Standards is used when referencing the ethical framework. The convergence between the two fields of business and education is depicted through the international students who are being drawn into the system and placed in English Language Learner (ELL) programs. The use of business schemas and the references to economical benefits in the recruitment process, along with other factors are mentioned to support this as an example of convergence.

Valerie Morkevicius of Colgate University has written an excellent book of interest to anyone in international ethics, especially to those interested in the realist and just war traditions in inter...

SUMMARY Recently, the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) solicited public comments on its Consultation Paper, Improving the Structure of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on the various questions asked in the IESBA Consultation Paper. Our comments submitted to IESBA appear below. Data Availability: The invitation to comment (which invited comments through February 4, 2015), with links to the consultation paper, is available at: http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/improving-structure-code-ethics-professional-accountants/.

The subject of this paper is the stand taken by the European Union towards the complex and decades-long Kosovo issue viewed from an international ethical perspective. The author is trying to prove that the issue, such as it is, represents a continuity of an inconsistent attitude of most European states towards the Serbian state territorial issue, which attitude has been persisting for two decades. The stand taken by the author is that by acquiescing to the formation and stabilization of a newly-created state in the Serbian territory, the European Union has actually assumed the role of a medium of overseas attempts at attaining as painlessly as possible the goal of the secession of Kosovo, which territory has been proclaimed of special American national interest and hence, of a legitimate influence. During the process, it was also the unreserved choice of Serbia for a 'European future' after October 5, 2000 that was taken into account. In the conclusion of this paper, the author points to possible consequences that the method of resolving this important state territorial issue could have on the stability of the Western Balkans in near or remote future.

Key questions: Whether in or outside of formal leadership, what is the well-spring of your life? Where do you turn for inspiration as a leader? Do you give sufficient attention to the nurturing of your spirit? What do you relate to in your life that is in some way ‘bigger than you’? In recent years there has been something of a moral meltdown in the corporate corridors of power. Few sectors have escaped high profile scandals, with public officials and business leaders guilty of malpractice, duplicity, fraud and corporate malfeasance. There are clearly important leadership matters surrounding these moral crises and we can see that leadership therefore matters to us all. Conventional leadership theories appear to be inadequate to equip those with power to act ethically and responsibly. According to the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer – a survey conducted across 27 countries with more than 33,000 respondents – overall trust has significantly declined across countries and sectors around the world, with CEOs ranking second lowest at 43% and government officials the lowest at 36% as credible spokespeople. It seems that in the eyes of a majority of the population, business is eroding rather than building trust, thereby threatening to undermine the very idea of leadership. This breakdown in trust not only damages relations between leaders and those they seek to lead as well as other important stakeholder relationships (e.g. customers, suppliers, regulators and the communities/ societies in which they are located), but also stands in the way of the risky but necessary innovations that could contribute to solving the problem of sustainable and equitable social and economic development. A number of business leaders, scholars and other observers have suggested that one response to this crisis is to move towards a world in which business is “purpose driven” beyond the goals of profit. For example, initiatives like A Blueprint for Better Business are drawing on insights from the ‘great faith’ and philosophical traditions to argue that both our society and the firms within it are more likely to flourish if we can reframe business to reflect important deeply held social values, moral purpose and broader responsibilities to society. As authors of this introduction and as editors of the book we need to say something about our collaboration. In terms of some of the issues this book encompasses, it could be argued that the two of us are at opposite ends of a spectrum that runs from philosophically grounded ethics, at the one extreme, and a deeply religious faith in Christianity, at the other. This book represents only one of our responses to the ethical problematic in leadership – we with two other colleagues have also edited a special issue of an international ethics journal which focuses more specifically on philosophical treatments of the topic . It was partly for this reason that we came together to edit this book because we wanted to allow multiple and often-contentious voices to mingle if not merge. In the process of contributing to and editing the book we believe that the continuum can be seen more like a globe where on many issues we coincide even though we may start from distant positions and may channel our end thoughts in diverse directions. This is perhaps the opposite of what is tending to occur through social media where we live in self-contained and self-reinforcing bubbles in which our ideas are forever confirmed and reconfirmed rather than subjected to some level of challenge. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows: first while traditionally ethics has been treated as an outlier or an additional issue to contemplate in the study of leadership, we discuss the idea of ethical leadership wherein they might become wholly integrated such that it is rare that one is examined without the other. Second this theme of holistic and integrated thinking is applied to the popular notion of leading with integrity

Social constructivist research in international relations (IR) has a complicated relationship with international ethics. Constructivism was an explicitly idealist approach to IR. This idealism enabled constructivism to differentiate itself from the two dominant materialist approaches in 1980s IR theory—neorealism and historical materialism. Constructivism explicitly sets itself up as a social scientific approach that could verify its claims through mainstream positivists' methods. Constructivists have been explicit that they do not think all norms are good. The difficulty that second-generation empirical constructivists have in linking their study of norms to questions of the normative has been an obstacle to the advancement of normative theorizing in their research. Constructivists framed the research agenda as an intervention into debates between neorealists and neoliberals. There has also been some concern that normative constructivists lack clear evaluative criteria with which to determine if a norm is good or bad.

It is almost an axiom that ‘[t]here exists no ‘international bar’ regulating forensic advocacy before international courts and tribunals’. 1 The ‘cardinal principle remains the freedom of choice by the State of the persons who will assist its agent’. 2 There is clearly no international law bar comparable to domestic bars – there are no qualifications which someone must attain before appearing before international courts and tribunals, no international code of ethics with which they must comply, and no international association to sanction them for misconduct. Here I will discuss, first, why there is no international law bar, focusing on the development of international advocacy and its regulation over the past century; and, secondly, what we have in the place of an international law bar. I conclude by asking whether things could, and should, change.

This article examines a series of debates about civil disobedience, conscription, and the justice of war that took place among American liberal philosophers, lawyers, and activists during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. It argues that these debates fundamentally reshaped American political philosophy, by shifting the focus from the welfare state to the realm of international politics. In order to chart this transition from the domestic to the international, this article focuses on the writings of two influential political theorists, John Rawls and Michael Walzer. The turn to international politics in American political philosophy has its origins, in part, in their arguments about domestic citizenship. In tracing these origins, this article situates academic philosophical arguments alongside debates among the American public at large. It offers a first account of the history of analytical political philosophy during the 1960s and 1970s, and argues that the role played by the Vietnam War in this history, though underappreciated, is significant.

Education and research together are vital components of academic institutions and globalization has improved health care education and research in numerous ways, one of which is multinational/transnational research/international collaboration. Usually academic institutions of high-income countries and institutions in low-income countries participate in collaboration. These collaborative research are guided by international ethics codes proposed by the international ethics committee to avoid stringent follow/unethical practices.

Historically, research ethics committees (RECs) have been guided by ethical principles regarding human experimentation intended to protect participants from physical harms and to provide assurance as to their interests and welfare. But research that analyzes large aggregate data sets, possibly including detailed clinical and genomic information of individuals, may require different assessment. At the same time, growth in international data-sharing collaborations adds stress to a system already under fire for subjecting multisite research to replicate ethics reviews, which can inhibit research without improving the quality of human subjects' protections ( 1 , 2 ). “Top-down” national regulatory approaches exist for ethics review across multiple sites in domestic research projects [e.g., United States ( 3 , 4 ), Canada ( 5 ), United Kingdom, ( 6 ), Australia ( 7 )], but their applicability for data-intensive international research has not been considered. Stakeholders around the world have thus been developing “bottom-up” solutions. We scrutinize five such ef orts involving multiple countries around the world, including resource-poor settings (table S1), to identify models that could inform a framework for mutual recognition of international ethics review (i.e., the acceptance by RECs of the outcome of each other's review).

This article argues that paternalism is an organizing principle of the international humanitarian order. The international community is increasingly organized to preserve, protect, and promote human life, reflecting an ethics of care and impulse to intervene for the greater good. This mixture of care and control is captured by the concept of paternalism, which Gerald Dworkin famously defined as ‘the interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced’. Paternalism is either present or dormant in many (if not nearly all) interventions that are designed for the betterment of people and the good of humanity. This article has four goals: 1) to reassess and examine the analytical power of this much maligned and misunderstood concept; 2) to consider the dimensions upon which paternalism varies in order to develop the concept’s value for empirical analysis; 3) to speculate how and why paternalism’s form has moved from ‘strong’ to ‘weak’ over the last hundred years; and, 4) to consider whether, why, and when paternalism might be legitimate.

In this interview, IESBA Chairman Stavros Thomadakis talks about setting international ethics standards for professional accountants.

THE two core values of international political philosophy are state sovereignty and human rights. Traditionally, of course, the former has dominated: we have hoped that each state will conscientiously protect its constituents’ rights, but we have been reluctant to intervene in a country’s internal affairs even when it fails spectacularly in this task. Recently, however, our priorities have shifted. We now take human rights more seriously and are correspondingly less deferential to state sovereignty, so a central question of contemporary international ethics is how to adjudicate the tension between state sovereignty and human rights. In this article I argue that, if we take human rights as seriously as we should, then even a legitimate state has no principled objection to outsiders’ intervening in its internal affairs if this interference will prevent just a single human rights violation. I defend this stark view by, among other things, showing that it (surprisingly) leaves adequate room for state sovereignty.