THE PAST IS IN THE PRESENT: READING THE WORK OF EDNA O'SHAUGHNESSY

Inquiries in Psychoanalysis: Collected Papers of Edna O'Shaughnessy. By Edna O'Shaughnessy; edited by Richard Rusbridger. London/New York: Routledge, 2014. 342 pp.     

Précis of Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View*

Persons and Bodies develops and defends an account of persons and of the relation between human persons and their bodies. Human persons are constituted by bodies, without being identical to the bodies that constitute them—just as, I argue, statues are constituted by pieces of bronze, say, without being identical to the pieces of bronze that constitute them. The relation of constitution, therefore, is not peculiar to persons and their bodies, but is pervasive in the natural world.     

The Eternal ‘Spirit of the Son’: Barth,Florovsky and Torrance on the Filioque

This article offers an Orthodox response to Barth's defense of the filioque. Florovsky's theology exemplifies how Orthodoxy addresses the concerns underlying Barth's filioque without resort to the filioque. Entailed in the elaboration of Florovsky's Christocentric pneumatology is a critique of other currents in modern Orthodox theology (Florensky, Lossky). Common emphases are noted between Florovsky and T.F. Torrance regarding the consubstantiality and propriety of the Spirit to the Son and the significance of this doctrine for ecclesial life, suggesting a basis for further ecumenical reintegration.     

The Principled Case for Employing Private Military and Security Companies in Interventions for Human Rights Purposes

The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to undertake intervention for human rights purposes (humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping) has been increasingly debated. The focus of such discussions has, however, largely been on practical issues and the contingent problems posed by private force. By contrast, this article considers the principled case for privatising humanitarian intervention. It focuses on two central issues. First, does outsourcing humanitarian intervention to private military and security companies pose some fundamental, deeper problems in this context, such as an abdication of a state's duties? Second, on the other hand, is there a case for preferring these firms to other, state‐based agents of humanitarian intervention? For instance, given a state's duties to their own military personnel, should the use of private military and security contractors be preferred to regular soldiers for humanitarian intervention?