Emanuela Ceva – författare

From the spread of kleptocracy in Venezuela at the expense of the country's economy, to President Trump's appointment of family members to high-ranking White House positions, to President Lukashenko's desperate stranglehold on power in Belarus, across the world political corruption is rampant--indeed practically too ubiquitous to keep track of. As these examples illustrate, political corruption is often associated to a variety of instances of abuse of power that either derive from a vicious trait of individual character, or develop within deeply dysfunctional institutions. To Emanuela Ceva and Maria Paola Ferretti, however, this piecemeal view is inadequate: individual and institutional instances of political corruption have a common root that we can understand only by treating corruption and anticorruption as a matter of a public ethics of office. Political corruption is the Trojan horse that undermines public institutions from within via an interrelated action of officeholders. Even well-designed and legitimate institutions can veer off track if the officeholders fail through their conduct to uphold a public ethics of office accountability.This book offers an analytically rigorous definition of political corruption. It also investigates the common normative root of its two manifestations--corrupt individual character, and corrupt institutional mechanisms--as a relationally wrongful practice that consists of an unaccountable use of the power of office by officeholders in public institutions. From this perspective, political corruption must be understood from within, for it is an internal enemy of public institutions that can only be opposed by mobilizing the officeholders to remain accountable and mutually answerable for their conduct. In this way, anticorruption calls on the officeholders' responsibility to work together to maintain an interactively just institutional system.

Contemporary societies are riddled with moral disputes caused by conflicts between value claims competing for the regulation of matters of public concern. This familiar state of affairs is relevant for one of the most important debates within liberal political thought: should institutions seek to realize justice or peace? Justice-driven philosophers characterize the normative conditions for the resolution of value conflicts through the establishment of a moral consensus on an order of priority between competing value claims. Peace-driven philosophers have concentrated, perhaps more modestly, on the characterization of the ways in which competing value claims should be balanced, with a view to establishing a modus vivendi aimed at containing the conflict.Interactive Justice addresses an important question related to this debate: on what terms should the parties interact during their conflict for their interaction to be morally acceptable to them? Although largely unexplored by political philosophers, this is a main area of concern in conflict management. Building on a proceduralist interpretation of "relational" concerns of justice, the author develops a liberal normative theory of interactive justice for the management of value conflict in politics grounded in the fundamental values of fair hearing and procedural equality. This book innovatively builds a bridge between works in political philosophy and peace studies to propose a fresh lens through which to view the normative responses liberal institutions ought to give to value conflict in politics, and moves beyond the apparent dichotomy between pursuing end-state justice through conflict resolution or peace through conflict containment.

From bans on religious symbols in public spaces, to the provision of abortion by doctors, recent cases across Europe have highlighted acute dilemmas about how best to respond to the claims of individuals or groups feeling that their values or beliefs are not treated fairly by the law.Diversity in Europe uses the resources of political theory alongside comparative analysis of contemporary practices in different countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey, Spain and the UK) to explore the challenges diversity poses for European democracies. Crucial throughout is whether the democratic commitment to equality entails uniformity in the law, or is compatible with saying 'yes' to some requests from citizens that they be treated differently, to accommodate their ethical, cultural and religious particularity. Such differential treatment may take several forms, e.g. group or individual rights, either to legal exemptions or to conscientious objection. Exploring these from various angles, the book gives a sense of the tools democracies need to address the challenges of diversity more generally.Making an important contribution to our understanding of the political implications of ethical, cultural and religious diversity, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of political and social philosophy, European studies, political science, social policy, applied ethics, law, and socio-legal studies.

Most contemporary political philosophers take justice—rather than legitimacy—to be the fundamental virtue of political institutions vis-à-vis the challenges of ethical diversity. Justice-driven theorists are primarily concerned with finding mutually acceptable terms to arbitrate the claims of conflicting individuals and groups. Legitimacy-driven theorists, instead, focus on the conditions under which those exercising political authority on an ethically heterogeneous polity are entitled to do so. But what difference would it make to the management of ethical diversity in liberal democratic societies if legitimacy were prior to or independent from justice?This question identifies a widely underexplored issue whose theoretical salience shows how the understanding of what constitutes the primary question of political philosophy has a deep impact on how practical political questions are interpreted and addressed. What difference would it make, for example, whether the difficulties concerning the safeguard of human rights were couched in terms of the justice or of the legitimacy of the documents and treaties sanctioning their implementation. How should the issue of the quality of democracies be addressed whether one assigned priority to the justice or legitimacy of democratic institutions? Addressing these and other topical questions, the book offers a new theoretical angle from which to consider a number of pressing social and political issues.This book was previously published as a special issue of the Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy.

Most contemporary political philosophers take justice—rather than legitimacy—to be the fundamental virtue of political institutions vis-à-vis the challenges of ethical diversity. Justice-driven theorists are primarily concerned with finding mutually acceptable terms to arbitrate the claims of conflicting individuals and groups. Legitimacy-driven theorists, instead, focus on the conditions under which those exercising political authority on an ethically heterogeneous polity are entitled to do so. But what difference would it make to the management of ethical diversity in liberal democratic societies if legitimacy were prior to or independent from justice?This question identifies a widely underexplored issue whose theoretical salience shows how the understanding of what constitutes the primary question of political philosophy has a deep impact on how practical political questions are interpreted and addressed. What difference would it make, for example, whether the difficulties concerning the safeguard of human rights were couched in terms of the justice or of the legitimacy of the documents and treaties sanctioning their implementation. How should the issue of the quality of democracies be addressed whether one assigned priority to the justice or legitimacy of democratic institutions? Addressing these and other topical questions, the book offers a new theoretical angle from which to consider a number of pressing social and political issues.This book was previously published as a special issue of the Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy.

Contemporary societies are riddled with moral disputes caused by conflicts between value claims competing for the regulation of matters of public concern. This familiar state of affairs is relevant for one of the most important debates within liberal political thought: should institutions seek to realize justice or peace? Justice-driven philosophers characterize the normative conditions for the resolution of value conflicts through the establishment of a moral consensus on an order of priority between competing value claims. Peace-driven philosophers have concentrated, perhaps more modestly, on the characterization of the ways in which competing value claims should be balanced, with a view to establishing a modus vivendi aimed at containing the conflict.Interactive Justice addresses an important question related to this debate: on what terms should the parties interact during their conflict for their interaction to be morally acceptable to them? Although largely unexplored by political philosophers, this is a main area of concern in conflict management. Building on a proceduralist interpretation of "relational" concerns of justice, the author develops a liberal normative theory of interactive justice for the management of value conflict in politics grounded in the fundamental values of fair hearing and procedural equality. This book innovatively builds a bridge between works in political philosophy and peace studies to propose a fresh lens through which to view the normative responses liberal institutions ought to give to value conflict in politics, and moves beyond the apparent dichotomy between pursuing end-state justice through conflict resolution or peace through conflict containment.

From bans on religious symbols in public spaces, to the provision of abortion by doctors, recent cases across Europe have highlighted acute dilemmas about how best to respond to the claims of individuals or groups feeling that their values or beliefs are not treated fairly by the law.Diversity in Europe uses the resources of political theory alongside comparative analysis of contemporary practices in different countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey, Spain and the UK) to explore the challenges diversity poses for European democracies. Crucial throughout is whether the democratic commitment to equality entails uniformity in the law, or is compatible with saying 'yes' to some requests from citizens that they be treated differently, to accommodate their ethical, cultural and religious particularity. Such differential treatment may take several forms, e.g. group or individual rights, either to legal exemptions or to conscientious objection. Exploring these from various angles, the book gives a sense of the tools democracies need to address the challenges of diversity more generally.Making an important contribution to our understanding of the political implications of ethical, cultural and religious diversity, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of political and social philosophy, European studies, political science, social policy, applied ethics, law, and socio-legal studies.

Recent years have seen a number of whistleblowers risk their liberty to expose illegal and corrupt behaviour. Some have heralded their bravery; others see them as traitors. Can there be a moral duty to emulate their example and blow the whistle?In this book, leading political philosophers Emanuela Ceva and Michele Bocchiola draw on well-known cases, such as those of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, to probe the difference between permissible and dutiful whistleblowing. They argue that, insofar as whistleblowing is understood as an individual act of dissent, it falls short of constituting a duty, although it can be praiseworthy. Whistleblowing should, they contend, be seen as an institutional duty, embedded within the organizational practices of public accountability.This concise book will be invaluable for students and scholars of applied political theory, and political and professional ethics.