![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the author’s supersession thesis and responds to several critical reflections on supersession by authors Gordon Christie, Burke Hendrix, Julio Montero, Esme Murdock, Seunghyun Song, Jeff Spinner-Halev, and Santiago Truccone-Borgogno.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. For ‘tricky’ and ‘slippery,’ see, Murdock (Citation2022, p. 411).
2. There is some very brief allusion to my work on treaties in Hendrix (Citation2022, pp. 407-408).
3. An endnote in the first published essay (Waldron, Citation1992a, p. 170n36) reminds me that even earlier versions were circulated and discussed in various venues in 1990.
4. Christie (Citation2022) asks: ‘What might we reasonably think, then, about the work of academics who raise fears concerning reactions to historic injustices?’ (p. 439)
5. Nozick (Citation1974) insisted that in the absence of a full treatment of the rectification of injustice, ‘one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it’ (p. 231, emphasis in original).
6. See, also Hendrix (Citation2022) for the idea of a ‘second-best difference principle’ (p. 405).
7. See, Waldron (Citation1988, pp. 253-283; Citation1993, Citation1998a, Citation1998b, Citation2002a, Citation2005).
8. I want to respond with similar defensiveness to Murdock’s claim (Murdock, Citation2022, p. 416) that I call reparations for historical injustice discriminatory. I say no such thing.
9. See the discussion of this difference in Waldron (Citation1995).
10. Spinner-Halev (2022) says that I am committed to a binary account: ‘Waldron’s argument mistakenly assumes a binary option, that either there is supersession or there is not’ (p. 382). Except for heuristic purposes, this is not right, unless Spinner-Halev means that in my view whether there is any supersession is a binary matter, even when the extent of it is a matter of degree.
11. These were the questions I posed in Waldron (Citation2003).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jeremy Waldron
Jeremy Waldron is University Professor and Professor of Law at New York University School of Law.