Frank Dietrich

The article addresses the issue of rationing health care services, a topic currently being hotly debated in many countries. The author argues that the aspect of causal responsibility ought to play a decisive role in the allocation of limited medical resources. Starting out from Ronald Dworkin's distinction between option luck and brute luck, the appropriate and meaningful uses of the term causal responsibility are clarified first. A discussion of the conditions which might justify giving lower priority to patients whose illnesses are the result of unhealthy behavior, like e.g. alcohol abuse, follows. Causal responsibility is then viewed in the context of private health insurance and the club model of organ donation. It is argued that individuals themselves are basically responsible for their decisions regarding insurance coverage and membership in organ donors' clubs. Causal responsibility is shown to be a more suitable criterion for rationing scarce medical resources than other criteria which might alternatively be considered, such as patients' age.

On 17 February 2008, the province of Kosovo formally declared its independence from Serbia. The most important normative theories of secession - choice theories and just cause theories - appear to justify the creation of a second Albanian state on the Balkans. Kosovo’s independence reflects the will of the vast majority of its inhabitants and can be seen as a remedy for grave human rights violations in the era of Slobodan Milosevic. Two problems, however, need to be thoroughly discussed. Firstly, the secession of Kosovo may establish a precedent for other separatist conflicts and contribute to the destabilization of south-east Europe and other world regions. Secondly, the new political authorities in Pristina may not be capable to protect the Serb minority against discrimination and repression. It is argued that both problems give no conclusive reasons to reject Kosovo’s claim for independence. However, some aspects of the secession, for instance the maintenance of the provincial borders, are considered to be illegitimate.

Eingangs wird die Pflicht zum Rechtsgehorsam näher bestimmt und die Anforderungen, denen ihre theoretische Begründung zu entsprechen hat, dargelegt. Anschließend wird das Fairnessprinzip ausgehend von den Formulierungen, die sich in den Arbeiten von Hart und Rawls finden, erläutert. Im nächsten Schritt wird dann seine Anwendung auf die staatliche Gemeinschaft als Grundlage einer individuellen Pflicht zum Gesetzesgehorsam betrachtet. Darauf aufbauend wird die einflussreiche Kritik, die Robert Nozick an der Fairnesstheorie geübt hat, vorgestellt und erörtert. Danach gilt es den Versuch verschiedener zeitgenössischer Vertreter der Fairnesstheorie, die Einwände Nozicks zu entkräften, einer eingehenden Prüfung zu unterziehen. Im letzten Abschnitt wird die Argumentation resümiert und die Begründung individueller Fairnesspflichten im Rahmen der staatlichen Gemeinschaft abschließend bewertet.

While the number of people is increasing rapidly on a global scale, the populations of some countries, e.g. Germany or Japan, are predicted to shrink significantly. The article raises the question whether these demographic developments have any bearing on the justification of territorial rights. More specifically, it is asked whether drastically growing populations may demand declining populations to cede parts of their territories. It is argued that a prima facie claim to the reallocation of territory can be grounded on end state theories as well as on historic accounts of distributive justice. However, several objections to the cession of land, such as the creation of perverse incentives, need to be taken into account. As an alternative to a complete transfer of territorial rights it is proposed to restrict single competences of the right holders concerned. It is maintained that states which control an overproportional share of the world’s territory ought to allow immigration from extremely densely populated countries.

In his recent book One World one of Peter Singer’s main concerns is the preferential treatment of compatriots. Two aspects of Singer’s theoretical reflections on this issue are critically discussed: the use of an impartiality test as basis for the justification of special duties and the resulting condemnation of partial preferences for compatriots. Subsequently, an alternative way to justify special duties is outlined and applied to the case of fellow citizens. It is argued, that partiality to compatriots can be defended, if special duties are regarded as a constitutive part of valuable relationships.

In recent years theorists, such as Yael Tamir and David Miller, have proposed a liberal form of nationalism thereby combining two seemingly incompatible traditions of thought. Perhaps the most controversial element of their theories is the claim that national communities should be accorded with a right to political self-determination. In the article it is explained, firstly, why membership in a nation is seen as important for the individual’s well-being and, secondly, why statehood is deemed necessary for the thriving of the nation. Subsequently, two problems of the liberal nationalists’ argument for political self-determination are discussed. It is argued, firstly, that national communities only need some form of regional autonomy to achieve their most important goals and, secondly, that non-national communities, e.g. religious groups, can base their demand for political sovereignity on the very same argument.

By the example of deafness the article examines the ethical problems that arise when preimplantation genetic diagnosis is used for the intentional heredity of genetic defects. In the first two sections the relevant rules of the German Embryo Protection Law and the motives of deaf couples to desire a handicapped child are explained. Subsequently, it is asked whether the positive selection of genetic defects can harm or otherwise wrong the future child. Moreover, a possible duty of prospective parents to prefer an embryo which will most probably experience a higher quality of life is discussed. Finally, the question is raised whether parents have a right to refuse medical treatment that may alleviate their child's handicap. As a result, it is argued that neither a legal ban on the positive selection of handicapped embryos nor compulsory treatment of deaf children are ethically justified.