259 Summary A stable solution does not always have to be fair. A situation in which a dominant party to the conflict achieves a stable situation by the ‘re-education’ of a minority, I do not see as a ‘solution’ but as an effective ‘oppression’ or ‘brainwashing’. The distinction between solution and oppression is a question of justice, in other words does every party or every person get what is due to him or her? Different normative theories conceptualize “justice” in different ways. According to a ‘Might makes Right’-theory, for example, the scenario just outlined could be considered a stable and just solution. To rule out such theories, I provide a general framework for what a ‘just’ solution must meet. Oppression occurs when people cannot determine who they are by themselves but are forced to a certain self-understanding. Someone is autonomous if he or she lives and acts in accordance with his or her own values, beliefs, reasons and commitments. A solution is therefore just if the ‘autonomy’ of the parties involved is guaranteed. In other words, ‘justice’ at least means that every human being should in principle be able to be who he or she is, and must also be able to express what is essential to him or her. Because of this desideratum, I examine theories and authors that also aspire to fulfill this. The addition ‘in principle’ refers to the possibility that a theory excludes certain identities on justifiable grounds. This means that a theory from the perspective of an identity itself substantiates that expressing that identity is not rational. In other words, the solution that is proposed by a theory is just if and only if that solution can be justified from the perspective of any rational identity. This dissertation stems from the practical urgency to resolve persistent and potentially violent conflicts. Since this is a philosophical study, and not a practical sociological study, the approach is theoretical and conceptual. The research question is therefore not how to solve IRMCs in practice, but how a just and stable solution can be understood conceptually. The research questions are therefore: 1. Is it possible to discern a stable and just solution for IRMCs using existing theories? 2. If (1) fails: is it possible to formulate a theory that can distinguish stable and just solutions, and what does this mean for the concept of ‘justice’? 3. If (2) succeeds: how can this theory be practically applied and/or institutionalized in such a way that IRMCs can be solved effectively? Philosophical theories of social conflict resolution Many philosophers have proposed how stable and just solutions to social conflicts in general can be achieved. A classic approach is to view social conflicts as conflicts of interest over scarce resources. According to Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), people prevent a self-destructive war of all against all by voluntarily submitting to a restrictive authority. This ‘contractual’ idea is a common thread in modern political and social philosophy, where the emphasis was initially on legitimizing existing authority, but has increasingly shifted to the freedom of the individual. The question then is how a ‘social contract’ can be justified for everyone. A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw