To Respect or Not to Respect? Principles for the Ethical Evaluation of Claims for Recognition.

According to John Rawls- 'Law of Peoples', one of the most important ethical obligations calls for the respectful treatment of other peoples. Rawls' contention that peoples' fundamental interest in self-respect makes them insist on "receiving from other peoples a proper respect and recognition" is clearly confirmed by ongoing events, notably by current American efforts to meet the respect demands of Iran and other Islamic countries. What is unclear, however, is how far such moral claims actually extend, especially as far as peoples' "trials during their history and of their culture with its accomplishments" are concerned. Even within relative homogeneous cultures people regularly argue over the legitimacy of specific claims for "due respect". The paper explores possible principles for an international order which satisfies mutual claims for 'due' respect. While everybody seems to agree on the abstract notion that peoples deserve 'due' respect, national representatives routinely quarrel over the adequacy of the respect their nations are shown. Once we move beyond the sphere of fundamental legal principles, such as sovereignty and territorial integrity, disputes over the legitimacy of particular claims abound. In fact, such arguments seem inevitable in a society as culturally diverse as the international system. The paper investigates the universal criteria which are required for adjucating and reconciling competing views concerning entitlements for respect. In this context, special emphasis will be given to the potential of rules for international dialogue and mutual toleration. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]