Daniel James Schuster (27 results)

Condition: New.

Condition: New. In.

Paperback. Condition: New.

Hardcover. Condition: New.

Condition: New.

Condition: New. In.

Paperback. Condition: New.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. Resisting under Occupation. A Palestinian - Uyghur Comparison | Daniel James Schuster | Taschenbuch | 140 S. | Englisch | 2017 | Anchor Academic Publishing | EAN 9783960671657 | Verantwortliche Person für die EU: Bedey & Thoms Media GmbH, Björn Bedey, Hermannstal 119k, 22119 Hamburg, info[at]diplom[dot]de | Anbieter: preigu. …

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. Accounting for Self-Defense: Perspective and Responsibility as its Moral Basis | Daniel James Schuster | Taschenbuch | 60 S. | Englisch | 2014 | Anchor Academic Publishing | EAN 9783954892730 | Verantwortliche Person für die EU: Bedey & Thoms Media GmbH, Björn Bedey, Hermannstal 119k, 22119 Hamburg, info[at]diplom[dot]de | Anbieter: preigu. …

paperback. Condition: Like New. LIKE NEW. SHIPS FROM MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. book.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. This item is printed on demand - it takes 3-4 days longer - Neuware -This comparative study of the resistance behavior between the Palestinians and Chinese Uyghurs delineates the commonalities of the two case studies in terms of circumstances and resistance behavior, while creating its research puzzle from their differences of the latter. The research question asks what explains the variation in resistance behavior between the two groups given their similarities.The study analyses the commonalities and differences of resistance behavior with regards to a 'resistance spectrum', starting with 'frames' ('How is the conflict framed '), continuing with an investigation of the non-violent forms of action-based resistance (poetry, songs, protests, etc.), concluding with an analysis of the violent forms of resistance. The study relies upon four different theories in its hypotheses' development in order to test different variables for explaining the research puzzle. 140 pp. Englisch. …

PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

Condition: New. Print on Demand pp. 142.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. This item is printed on demand - it takes 3-4 days longer - Neuware -It is commonly believed that people in certain circumstances possess a right to self-defense. This exists not only on an individual but also on a collective level, historically known as Just War Theory. During the 20th century this theory has undergone a revival in academic circles, mainly due to the invention of nuclear weaponry, the cold war and Americäs military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, many of the assumptions of the Just War Theory have been challenged and undergone a revision, and a separate school of thought has emerged: the ¿revisionist¿ just war theorists. A core feature of their philosophy is viewing war as the continuation of different forms of conflict, such as self-defense. The moral justification for war needs to, therefore, stem from the same source of morality. This book is about the philosophical debate on the moral basis for self-defense. The accounts of two main protagonists in the field, Judith Jarvis Thomson and Jeff McMahan, are outlined. The former takes a rights-based approach to self-defense, the latter a responsibility-based one. Subsequently the author develops his own account, which is a partial synthesis between the former two, albeit remaining a responsibility-based one at its core. He introduces the conceptual differentiation between perspectives into the fundamental level of justification, which gives rise to a separate, supplementary criterion. The author also addresses the points of criticism raised against the former two accounts and shows how his own is better equipped in responding to the challenges raised against McMahan¿s responsibility-based account. 60 pp. Englisch. …

Condition: New. Print on Demand pp. 142.

Condition: New. PRINT ON DEMAND pp. 142.

Condition: New. Print on Demand pp. 60 24:B&W 5.83 x 8.27 in or 210 x 148 mm (A5) Perfect Bound on Creme w/Gloss Lam.

Condition: New. Print on Demand pp. 60.

Kartoniert / Broschiert. Condition: New. Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. This comparative study of the resistance behavior between the Palestinians and Chinese Uyghurs delineates the commonalities of the two case studies in terms of circumstances and resistance behavior, while creating its research puzzle from their differences .…

Condition: New. PRINT ON DEMAND pp. 60.

PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

Condition: New. Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. It is commonly believed that people in certain circumstances possess a right to self-defense. This exists not only on an individual but also on a collective level, historically known as Just War Theory. During the 20th century this theory has undergone a re.…

PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. This item is printed on demand - Print on Demand Titel. Neuware -This comparative study of the resistance behavior between the Palestinians and Chinese Uyghurs delineates the commonalities of the two case studies in terms of circumstances and resistance behavior, while creating its research puzzle from their differences of the latter. The research question asks what explains the variation in resistance behavior between the two groups given their similarities.The study analyses the commonalities and differences of resistance behavior with regards to a ¿resistance spectrum¿, starting with ¿frames¿ (¿How is the conflict framed ¿), continuing with an investigation of the non-violent forms of action-based resistance (poetry, songs, protests, etc.), concluding with an analysis of the violent forms of resistance. The study relies upon four different theories in its hypotheses¿ development in order to test different variables for explaining the research puzzle.Diplomica Verlag, Hermannstal 119k, 22119 Hamburg 140 pp. Englisch.…

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - This comparative study of the resistance behavior between the Palestinians and Chinese Uyghurs delineates the commonalities of the two case studies in terms of circumstances and resistance behavior, while creating its research puzzle from their differences of the latter. The research question asks what explains the variation in resistance behavior between the two groups given their similarities.The study analyses the commonalities and differences of resistance behavior with regards to a 'resistance spectrum', starting with 'frames' ('How is the conflict framed '), continuing with an investigation of the non-violent forms of action-based resistance (poetry, songs, protests, etc.), concluding with an analysis of the violent forms of resistance. The study relies upon four different theories in its hypotheses' development in order to test different variables for explaining the research puzzle.…

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. This item is printed on demand - Print on Demand Titel. Neuware -It is commonly believed that people in certain circumstances possess a right to self-defense. This exists not only on an individual but also on a collective level, historically known as Just War Theory. During the 20th century this theory has undergone a revival in academic circles, mainly due to the invention of nuclear weaponry, the cold war and Americäs military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, many of the assumptions of the Just War Theory have been challenged and undergone a revision, and a separate school of thought has emerged: the ¿revisionist¿ just war theorists. A core feature of their philosophy is viewing war as the continuation of different forms of conflict, such as self-defense. The moral justification for war needs to, therefore, stem from the same source of morality. This book is about the philosophical debate on the moral basis for self-defense. The accounts of two main protagonists in the field, Judith Jarvis Thomson and Jeff McMahan, are outlined. The former takes a rights-based approach to self-defense, the latter a responsibility-based one. Subsequently the author develops his own account, which is a partial synthesis between the former two, albeit remaining a responsibility-based one at its core. He introduces the conceptual differentiation between perspectives into the fundamental level of justification, which gives rise to a separate, supplementary criterion. The author also addresses the points of criticism raised against the former two accounts and shows how his own is better equipped in responding to the challenges raised against McMahan¿s responsibility-based account.Books on Demand GmbH, Überseering 33, 22297 Hamburg 60 pp. Englisch. …

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - It is commonly believed that people in certain circumstances possess a right to self-defense. This exists not only on an individual but also on a collective level, historically known as Just War Theory. During the 20th century this theory has undergone a revival in academic circles, mainly due to the invention of nuclear weaponry, the cold war and Americäs military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, many of the assumptions of the Just War Theory have been challenged and undergone a revision, and a separate school of thought has emerged: the ¿revisionist¿ just war theorists. A core feature of their philosophy is viewing war as the continuation of different forms of conflict, such as self-defense. The moral justification for war needs to, therefore, stem from the same source of morality. This book is about the philosophical debate on the moral basis for self-defense. The accounts of two main protagonists in the field, Judith Jarvis Thomson and Jeff McMahan, are outlined. The former takes a rights-based approach to self-defense, the latter a responsibility-based one. Subsequently the author develops his own account, which is a partial synthesis between the former two, albeit remaining a responsibility-based one at its core. He introduces the conceptual differentiation between perspectives into the fundamental level of justification, which gives rise to a separate, supplementary criterion. The author also addresses the points of criticism raised against the former two accounts and shows how his own is better equipped in responding to the challenges raised against McMahan¿s responsibility-based account. …