Interactive justice, the boundary problem, and proportionality
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12609397 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Laura Valentini (0000-0002-5782-5164, London School of Economics and Political Science, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 466-472 |
| Publication date | 2018-06-16 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-8230 • E-ISSN: 1743-8772 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13698230.2018.1481610 |
| OpenAlex | W2808084697 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
In Interactive Justice, Emanuela Ceva argues that the parties to an intractable value conflict should each be given an equal substantive right to a hearing. I suggest that Ceva’s account gives insufficient attention to the question of who counts as a party to a value conflict. Once more attention to this question is given, her defence of an equal right to a hearing may be put into question
Economic Justice · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Proportionality (law · Sociology · Value (mathematics · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Legal principles and applications · Mathematics · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |