R Paul

Cet article s'interroge sur le statut à la fois épistémologique et ontologique d'un passé qui « a été » et dont les individus comme les sociétés retiennent le souvenir, mais qui, comme le langage ordinaire l'exprime, « n'est plus » . Toute une tradition de réflexion sur la conservation du passé par la mémoire depuis Platon et Aristote a voulu ramener la mémoire à la métaphore de l'empreinte. En revanche, cet article tente de montrer que la mémoire à plusieurs dont dépend la connaissance historique n'est pas simplement assimilable à ce topos traditionnel. Ce qui caractérise la mémoire plurielle et publique qui alimente le travail de l'historien, c'est le statut privilégié du témoignage, la possibilité de confronter différents témoignages les uns aux autres, dont dépend la crédibilité du récit historique. C'est ainsi moins la problématique d'une ressemblance entre récit et événements racontés — problématique de la trace, héritée d'une tendance traditionnelle à identifier la mémoire avec l'empreinte — que la confrontation de témoignages dans leurs différents degrés de fiabilité qui nous fait assister à l'événement raconté. Cette réflexion sur le décalage entre mémoire et histoire ouvre, dans la deuxième partie de cet article, à une analyse approfondie de la temporalité propre au passé qui fait l'objet du souvenir et conduit à une confrontation avec privilège accordé, dans la synthèse des trois modes du temps, chez saint Augustin au présent et, chez Heidegger, au futur. De cette manière, l'article tente de rééquilibrer la synthèse des temps en lui restituant un autre rapport au passé, que l'on ne saurait atteindre à partir d'Augustin ou de Heidegger. Libérer l'histoire du paradigme de la trace, de la métaphore de la mémoire comme empreinte, revient précisément à la restitution de ce mode de temporalisation du passé jusqu'ici esquivé : cet autre rapport au passé vise, conjointement à la mise en évidence du témoignage propre au travail de l'historien, à souligner la dette envers le passé et de la possible délivrance de la dette. C'est, en effet, en délivrant « par le moyen de l'histoire, les promesses non tenues, voir empêchées et refoulées par le cours ultérieur de l'histoire, qu'un peuple, une nation, une entité culturelle, peuvent accéder à une conception ouverte et vivante de leurs traditions ». This article examines both the epistemological and the ontological status of the past which at once « has been » and is remembered by individuals and societies, but which, and ordinary language tells us, is « no more ». An important tradition of reflection that has focused, since Plato and Aristotle, on the conservation of the past by memory, has attempted to account f or memory in terms of the metaphor of the impression. This article, on the contrary, argues that the plural memory retained by a number of individuals, upon which historical knowledge depends, cannot simply be derived from this traditional presup-position concerning memory. Memory which is at once plural and public that is the source of the historian's research most directly concerns the testimony of witnesses, the possibility of confronting different testimonies, each with the others, which constitutes the basis of the credibility of the historian's argument. Hence, it is less a problem of the resemblance of the historical narrative to narrated events — inherited from the traditional tendency to identify memory with the impression — than the confrontation of witnesses in their différent degrees of trustworthiness, which makes it possible to understand the significance of the narrated event. This reflection concerning the disparity between memory and history is followed, in the second part of this article, to an analysis of the temporality that characterizes the past which is remembered. It leads to a questioning of the privilege accorded, in the synthesis of the three modes of time, to be present in the philosophy of saint Augustine and to the future in that of Heidegger., To liberate history from the paradigm of the trace, from the metaphor of memory as impression, is tantamount to the retrieval of mode of temporalization of the past which has previously been neglected: this other relation to the past intends, while underlining the status of the witness that characterize the historian's endeavor, to place in evidence the idea of the debt toward the past. It is consciousness of the debt toward the past, and of need of deliverance from the debt which, by means of history, aims at emancipation from « the unkept promises that have been blocked or repressed by the later course of history, through which a people, a nation, a culture, may attain a living and open conception of its own traditions ».

In an increasingly technology-driven world, the standard of protection provided by intellectual property (IP) rules is affecting development policies and human rights issues more than ever. Strict IP rules have had an adverse impact on the ability of many governments to fulfill their human rights obligations, of which obligations to ensure access to affordable medicines, education and adequate food. This trend towards higher IP protection has been stimulated by the adoption of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and the harmonization initiatives at the WIPO. A proposal for a development agenda for WIPO was first launched at the 2004 WIPO General Assembly. At that time, member states agreed to hold a series of inter-sessional intergovernmental meetings (IIMs) to examine proposals originally submitted by Brazil and Argentina as well as additional proposals of other member states. The 45 recommendations adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 are divided into six clusters, namely: Cluster A: Technical Assistance and Capacity Building; Cluster B: Norm-setting, Flexibilities, Public Policy and Public Domain; Cluster C: Technology Transfer, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Access to Knowledge; Cluster D: Assessments, Evaluation and Impact Studies; Cluster E: Institutional Matters Including Mandate and Governance; and Cluster F: Others. These include 19 recommendations for immediate implementation by WIPO and 26 for which the CDIP is required to develop a work program.

We define a class of games with discontinuous payoffs that we call shared resource games and establish a pure strategy Nash equilibrium existence theorem for these games. We then apply this result to a canonical game of fiscal competition for mobile capital. Other applications are also discussed. Our result for the mobile capital game holds for any finite number of regions, permits general preferences over private and public goods, and does not assume that production technologies have a particular functional form, or are identical in all regions, or satisfy the Inada condition at zero.

Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's provocative article, 'The Decline of Cause,' focuses on the diminishing importance of causation in law and moral philosophy. In this reply, I suggest answers to some of the questions Professor Thomson raises. Professor Thomson's article revolves around various forms of a classic dilemma: two persons take equal care but, through chance, their actions produce different results. Does the outcome of their actions matter in a moral assessment of those actions? Professor Thomson first sets out what the styles as the Kantian and 'moral sophisticates" position that the outcome of an act does not and should not effect our assessment of the moral quality of the act. Subsequently, however, Thomson rejects the absolute nature of this position. She concludes that, in cases of acts blameworthy in the first instance - i.e., blameworthy on some ground independent of the actual outcome - resulting harm or near harm does and should render our moral assessment more negative than it would be absent such result. Professor Thomson confesses herself to be largely at a loss to explain why we hold these moral intuitions, and thus she does little more than posit - rather than explain - them. In the first part of my reply to Professor Thomson, I explain why the reasoning that leads her to reject the Kantian position is flawed - why, in fact, her own arguments lead to the conclusion that the Kantian position is correct and that outcome does not matter in our moral assessment of a person's acts. In the second part of my reply, I accept for the sake of argument Professor Thomson's position on Kant and the 'moral sophisticates,' and I address her ultimate intuitive conclusion that outcome does matter, but only in cases of fault in the first instance. I submit that I can offer Professor Thomson reasons for her intuited conclusion, reasons which explain not only why outcome matters in cases of fault in the first instance, but why it matters in all cases - including cases of no fault in the first instance.

Christian doctrine considers mental states important in judging a person's moral status, whereas Jewish doctrine considers them less important. The authors provide evidence from 4 studies that American Jews and Protestants differ in the moral import they attribute to mental states (honoring one's parents, thinking about having a sexual affair, and thinking about harming an animal). Although Protestants and Jews rated the moral status of the actions equally. Protestants rated a target person with inappropriate mental states more negatively than did Jews. These differences in moral judgment were partially mediated by Protestants' beliefs that mental states are controllable and likely to lead to action and were strongly related to agreement with general statements claiming that thoughts are morally relevant. These religious differences were not related to differences in collectivistic (interdependent) and individualistic (independent) tendencies.