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.

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.

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 nature of modern economies, and their ideological dimensions. The cultural challenges of capitalist economies and their “socialist” alternatives.

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.

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.

The then ICJ Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh defined immunity “[as] … an exception from the general rule that man is responsible legally and morally for his actions.”1 While it is widely acknowledged that serving high-ranking public officials enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts in most circumstances, there is an ongoing debate regarding how far the immunity entitlement extends and whether there are exceptions to it, particularly in cases of serious criminal wrongs. The present chapter reviews the conceptual, doctrinal, and theoretical foundations of the immunities of foreign officials, and their subjective, material, and temporal scopes. It also examines the rules that govern situations when foreign official immunity may not apply or may apply only to official acts, and the conditions for either of these outcomes. The chapter draws from recent developments in international criminal law, international human rights law, and transnational criminal law, and builds on the influential contribution of the ILC on the topic “Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction” included in the long-term program of work of the commission in 2006.

Empires and nations pull in different directions. Empires are founded on principles of institutionalized differences and distinctions, both laterally between peoples or geographies and vertically between those on top whose superiority grants them the right to rule over others and those below whose inferiority condemns them to be ruled by others. Nations, in contrast, are imagined and affective communities that promote, at least rhetorically if not always in practice, the commonality, horizontal equivalency, and homogeneity of the population that constitutes the nation. A nation at its inception is a political claim that a shared culture, ethnic, political, or religious, gives a people the right to self-rule, and possibly to sovereignty and statehood. At one end of the political spectrum, empires operate through hierarchy and difference between subjects and rulers, while at the other end, nations function on the basis of equality and shared nature, whether ethnic, religious, or political, of their citizens.

In this chapter economic aspects of constitutions are explored. Basically there are three. Constitutions, firstly, act as a condition for markets and the overall economy: they are, most of the time, criticial preconditions for economic development by the - predictable - laws they generate and the protection they offer for property and capital). Secondly constitutions act as a factor in markets and the economy. They, for instance, lower transaction costs. And. thirdly, constitutions act as a catalyst in economic relations, e.g. by boosting mutual trust.

This chapter argues that protecting rights in a constitutional democracy is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government, where each branch has a distinct but complementary role to play, whilst working together with the other branches in the constitutional scheme. At the heart of the chapter is a collaborative conception of the separation of powers, where the branches are situated within a heterarchical relationship of reciprocity, recognition, and respect. Grounded in the key values of comity, collaboration, and conflict management, this chapter sketches out the contours of the collaborative constitution. Instead of a conflictual dynamic of ’constitutional showdowns’, the chapter marks out a preference for ’constitutional slowdowns’. Whilst accepting the inevitability and, indeed, the legitimacy of constitutional counterbalancing and tension between the branches of government, the collaborative constitution attends to the collaborative norms which frame and shape the interaction between the branches in a well-functioning constitutional order.

Chapter 2 builds on research across the social sciences to provide a parsimonious approach to the study of fairness reasoning “in action.” In Western democracies, it argues, reasoning about the fairness of redistributive social policies implies two types of fairness evaluation: (1) how fair is it for some to make (a lot) more money than others in the marketplace and (2) how fair is it for some to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes? Each question calls to mind a different norm of fairness: the proportionality norm, which prescribes that individual rewards be proportional to effort and talent, or the reciprocity norm, which prescribes that cooperative behavior be rewarded more than uncooperative behavior. Agreement with these two norms is quasi-universal. Where people differ is with regard to their fairness beliefs, that is, their assessment of the status quo as more or less deviating from what these norms prescribe.