Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
absolute quality. It is what we imagine will issue from an equitable solution to a dispute over the allocation of rights. In a world of scarcity, there will inevitably be conflicts over rights, and since there are as many points of view as there are people, there is nothing to insist that two conflicting sets of views will hold that the outcome of such a dispute will be "just". An extreme example will make the point obvious. The wholesale destruction currently being wreaked on people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and their property is held to be unjust by most of the civilised world --but it is plain that this is not a view held by the people doing the destroying. As soon as you have one dissenting voice over the distribution of rights, you have the possibility of conflict. That possibility -- probability, indeed -- requires a system for resolving disputes. Now, it follows from the relativity of the perception of justice that people in dispute will accept as "just" the results of arbitration only if they have previously agreed to abide by it. The alternative is that the "resolution" is forced upon them. In that event, you have not
Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines – de Gruyter
Published: Jun 1, 1993
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.