Examines Nazi legal theory, the normative ideas driving the Führer state and the legal subtext to the regime's escalating atrocities.

Francisco de Vitoria and the Evolution of International Law: Justifying Injustice is a reconstruction of the philosophical and legal theories of Fray Francisco de Vitoria, hailed by many as one of the primary founders of international law, and how these served to introduce the theory of an international community in which all nations take part, regardless of religious beliefs. The impact of the conquest of the Americas resulted in a transformation or re-articulation of the Old World’s preconceived notions of human nature and the rights of people and nations. Due to the need for a more universal principle, the theory of international law began to expand. In order to present a perspective on international law and human rights beyond the scope of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, Vitoria’s thoughts are compared to those of Hugo Grotius and John Locke, to show how the issues of natural, human, and divine law evolved through time. Their questioning of the right to invade other countries and subdue their inhabitants brought to light the conflictive relationship between colonial expansion and the law of nations and was an essential part of debates among intellectuals, jurists, and theologians in an attempt to find a way to reconcile these two often-contradictory notions.

Psychologist John Jost has spent decades researching poor people who vote for policies of inequality and women who think men deserve higher salaries. He argues that the persecuted often justify and defend the very social systems that oppress them because doing so serves a fundamental need for certainty, security, and social acceptance.

Contemporary philosophical pluralism recognizes the inevitability and legitimacy of multiple ethical perspectives and values, making it difficult to isolate the higher-order principles on which to base a theory of justice. Rising up to meet this challenge, Rainer Forst, a leading member of the Frankfurt School's newest generation of philosophers, conceives of an "autonomous" construction of justice founded on what he calls the basic moral right to justification. Forst begins by identifying this right from the perspective of moral philosophy. Then, through an innovative, detailed critical analysis, he ties together the central components of social and political justice--freedom, democracy, equality, and toleration--and joins them to the right to justification. The resulting theory treats "justificatory power" as the central question of justice, and by adopting this approach, Forst argues, we can discursively work out, or "construct," principles of justice, especially with respect to transnational justice and human rights issues. As he builds his theory, Forst engages with the work of Anglo-American philosophers such as John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Amartya Sen, and critical theorists such as Jürgen Habermas, Nancy Fraser, and Axel Honneth. Straddling multiple subjects, from politics and law to social protest and philosophical conceptions of practical reason, Forst brilliantly gathers contesting claims around a single, elastic theory of justice.

"Living by faith" is much more than a general Christian precept; it is the fundamental posture of believers in a world rife with suffering and injustice. In this penetrating reflection on the meaning of "justification," Oswald Bayer shows how this key religious term provides a comprehensive horizon for discussing every aspect of Christian theology, from creation to the end times. Inspired by and interacting with Martin Luther, the great Christian thinker who grappled most intensely with the concept of justification, Bayer explores anew the full range of traditional dogmatics (sin, redemption, eschatology, and others), placing otherwise complex theological terms squarely within their proper milieu -- everyday life. In the course of his discussion, Bayer touches on such deep questions as the hidden nature of God, the hope for universal justice, the problem of evil, and -- one of the book's most engaging motifs -- Job's daring lawsuit with God.

“A brilliant and bracing analysis of the Palestine question and settler colonialism . . . a vital lens into movement lawyering on the international plane.” —Vasuki Nesiah, New York University, founding member of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) Justice in the Question of Palestine is often framed as a question of law. Yet none of the Israel-Palestinian conflict’s most vexing challenges have been resolved by judicial intervention. Occupation law has failed to stem Israel’s settlement enterprise. Laws of war have permitted killing and destruction during Israel’s military offensives in the Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accord’s two-state solution is now dead letter. Justice for Some offers a new approach to understanding the Palestinian struggle for freedom, told through the power and control of international law. Focusing on key junctures—from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to present-day wars in Gaza—Noura Erakat shows how the strategic deployment of law has shaped current conditions. Over the past century, the law has done more to advance Israel’s interests than the Palestinians’. But, Erakat argues, this outcome was never inevitable. Law is politics, and its meaning and application depend on the political intervention of states and people alike. Within the law, change is possible. International law can serve the cause of freedom when it is mobilized in support of a political movement. Presenting the promise and risk of international law, Justice for Some calls for renewed action and attention to the Question of Palestine. “Careful and captivating . . . This book asks that the Palestinian liberation struggle and Jewish-Israeli society each reckon with the impossibility of a two-state future, reimagining what their interests are—and what they could become.” —Amanda McCaffrey, Jewish Currents