This article examines a scholarly discourse concerning the ethics of the acceptance of refugees, which has appeared in the literature of contemporary political philosophy.It focuses on the discussion not “as it is” but “as it ought to be.” The first and second sections describe selected views of communitarians and cosmopolitans.Among the communitarians, the views of Michael Walzer are outlined.Subsequently, the cosmopolitan views of Joseph Carens and the utilitarians are described.These sections imply that to some extent, harmony exists between the communitarians and the cosmopolitans regarding the acceptance of refugees.
Subsequently, the third section closely examines the points where these views are harmonized.The issues of the definition of a refugee, limits of acceptance, causal relationships, and the priority of asylum seekers are covered.This section reveals the common questions to communitarians and cosmopolitans.At the same time, it reconfirms the different approaches employed by political philosophers to ethical enquiries, in spite of their conclusions being superficially similar.
The final section briefly discusses the arguments of internally displaced persons, who have attracted the attention of scholars of international studies and those of forced migration studies.This indicates that the trend of contemporary thought after the Cold War has influenced the practice of asylum.The relation between states and the international society is currently being redefined, and in this context, the value of asylum is being seriously questioned.
抄録全体を表示