Conception Of Global Justice Research Articles

Global justice must be seen to be done—A defense of integrated pluralism

Over the past two decades the academic literature on global distributive justice has generated a proliferation of positions regarding the question of how to conceive a globally just distribution of goods. One important development within this global justice debate is the emergence and increasing influence of several Pluralist theorists of global justice—including, perhaps most prominently, Fraser, R. Miller, and Risse. This article argues that Pluralists have not yet sufficiently engaged with the difficulty of how their conceptions of global justice could satisfy the publicity condition. This condition requires that the demands of justice must be publicly known to be recognized and fulfilled. This article explains why meeting this condition is especially difficult for the Pluralists. Then, it outlines an Integrated Pluralist position which, by placing special emphasis on global background justice, can meet the publicity condition. This position “integrates” concerns of justice emerging from a plurality of sites of justice. Thereby it follows “Integrationist” approaches to global justice—like those of Caney and Walton—which claim that the contents of justice of a given site of justice must not be determined in isolation from contents of other sites of justice.

Justice in the Process of Regional Conflict Settlement: Analysis of Russia’s Strategy, 1992-2021

Research in the field of regional conflict resolution rarely touches on the issue of justice. This paper aims to identify what understanding of international justice underlies Russia’s actions as a mediator/peacekeeper in the process of regional conflict resolution in the 1990s-2010s. The study also contributes to the understanding of Russia’s foreign policy by clarifying Moscow’s views on the essence and parameters of a just global order. The paper provides a study of the dominant Russian views on the essence of justice in international relations. It offers an insight into Russia’s peace-making and conflict resolution activities in the context of the three concepts of global justice and taking into account the factor of national interests. The study concludes that the dominant understanding of international justice in Russia is that which corresponds to Allen Buchanan’s concept of subjective justice. In Moscow’s view, international justice is a set of rules developed in the process of consensus driven negotiations between the great powers. According to this logic, a just settlement of the regional conflict is possible only on the basis of the consensus of the parties to the conflict and in accordance with the interests of the global and regional powers concerned. The fair interaction of the great powers in the settlement of the regional conflict and the impact that the conflict resolution could have on the development of the international order were of crucial importance for Moscow within the period under consideration. Moscow’s activity in the conflict resolution in the post-Soviet space generally corresponded to the model of justice as mutual recognition, but with absolute priority of Russian national interests. The strategy for resolving regional conflicts in the post-Soviet space could only be understood in the broad context of relations with Western countries and has changed in line with the development of these relations.

Zionism and Political Liberalism: The Right of Scattered Nations to Self-Determination

AbstractThis Article offers a defense of egalitarian Zionism that, unlike Chaim Gans’s argument for this view, does not appeal to the Jewish problem in justifying the Zionist requirement for a state with a dominant Jewish community. The argument extracts from the egalitarian principles that underlie John Rawls’s political liberalism, a conception of global justice according to which members of a scattered nation are entitled to a fair opportunity to establish a new state within which they enjoy the advantage of demographic dominance

EU Foreign Policy and Humanitarian Intervention: Justice in a Disordered World

This paper applies three conceptions of global justice—justice as non-domination, as impartiality, and as mutual recognition—to the study and practice of humanitarian intervention in EU foreign policy. It shows that these three conceptions of justice require very different behaviour in the three stages of a humanitarian intervention: the decision to intervene; the conduct of an intervention; and post-intervention reconstruction. As recent cases such as Libya and Syria testify, the EU and EU member states will continue to confront situations in which they must decide whether to wage an armed intervention on humanitarian grounds. This paper aims to show the implications and viability of each conception of global justice as it pertains to humanitarian intervention in EU foreign policy and to provide policymakers with alternative courses of action and modes of self-assessment when it comes to the EU’s ambition to be a value-based actor in world politics.

Between Border Dispute and Ethnic Conflict: The EU as a Just Mediator in the Serbia-Kosovo Stalemate

This paper analyses the contribution of the European Union (EU) to global justice and ethno-national conflict resolution between Kosovo and Serbia through its rule of law mission in Kosovo (EULEX), the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP), and the EU-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade. The paper argues that an observed inability of the EU to resolve the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo stems from inconsistent and often contradictory normative drivers in the EU’s policy towards Serbia and Kosovo. The normative drivers are part of the EU’s commitment to achieving global justice through its foreign policy. To better understand and disaggregate these justice concerns, the paper utilises the GLOBUS global justice framework, which distinguishes between three conceptions of global justice: justice as non-domination, justice as impartiality and justice as mutual recognition. The paper identifies the ideal-situation policy choices in conflict management, which are in line with the respective conceptions of global justice. The paper then assesses the EU’s actions in Serbia and Kosovo and their effects on the ground against these ideal-type scenarios. The analysis reveals the key policy dilemmas the EU faces on the ground and argues that these dilemmas hinder their efforts in resolving the resolution of the frozen conflict between Serbia and Kosovo. The paper relies on both documentary data and interviews with stakeholders in Kosovo and Serbia that are affected by the EU’s actions, including civil society, businesses and governmental agencies.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators

sThe paper focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of global justice and discusses theories, concepts, evaluative principles, and methodologies related to the study of global justice. In this paper, we seek to clarify how to conceptualize global justice, how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories, and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice. Global justice is a broad concept that is composed of multi-level and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities. A coherent and integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore much needed in order to address some of the basic and important questions under study. The paper seeks to synthesize the multiple theories and conceptions of global justice that exist in the academic discourse and literature into three main theoretical approaches to global justice—rights based, good based, and virtue based. These three approaches are a good sample of and reflect well the strengths of the different theoretical, intellectual and cultural traditions at play in the study of global justice. From this perspective, the synthesis of the three approaches is meant to provide us with a coherent theoretical framework that serves as the normative basis and justifies the selection of indicators for measurement.

From Humanitarian Needs to Border Control: Norwegian Media Narratives on Migration and Conceptions of Justice

ABSTRACT Migration is a topic that has frequently been present in political debates and the mass media in recent years, especially following the European and EU migration and refugee crisis. Newspaper debates in Norway presented different narratives with different conceptions of global justice. Migration is by definition a cross-border issue that has a direct effect on the interests of states as well as individuals, therefore the question of global justice is highly relevant. Three core media narratives were present: the humanitarian, the statist, and the EU integration narrative, which particularly highlights Norway as an integrated non-member of the EU. In the humanitarian narrative, a notion of impartiality of universal individual rights was prevalent, while in the statist narrative and to some extent in the EU integration narrative, a territorial and state-oriented conception of justice as non-domination was visible. Concerns about human rights were prevalent mainly in matters far away from Norway, but less so when the so-called migration crisis hit Norway directly.

Out but Still In: Norway's Approach to Migration and Asylum as a Non-EU State

Norway is a somewhat exceptional country in Europe in political terms. It is one of the few European countries that are not members of the European Union (EU). Rather it has structured its connections with European institutions and organisations through membership in the European Economic Area (EEA) and a host of other agreements and accessions to EU policies. It is in this context that this paper addresses Norway’s migration policies from the vantage point of three conceptions of global justice. The time period for definitional analysis is recent developments, with a main focus on 2009 to 2016. A relatively recent historical phenomenon to Norway, migration is rapidly becoming an ever more important topic of political debate and policy-making. As any territorial state, Norway is part of the system of states, with effects on the logic of membership and gatekeeping on access to the territory and residence. This system has, however, become more ‘porous’ with supranational actors such as the EU, international legal obligations, and increased interconnectedness in cultural and economic terms transforming the nation-state. A firm conclusion on the adherence of Norway’s migration policy with the three conceptions of justice cannot be provided based on the descriptive definitional work of this paper. If anything, it has shown that there is arguably a tilt toward more adherences with justice as non-domination. Still, in terms of economic migration there is movement in the direction toward justice as impartiality in the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles for EU and EEA citizens. On the other hand, parts of asylum policy clearly stand in the way of realising the notion of reciprocity in the justice as impartiality or mutual recognition.

Propuesta de un éthos filosófico ante una <em>Modernidad Glocal</em>

Este artículo pretende mostrar la necesidad de pensar un concepto de justicia global que vaya más allá de los paradigmas tradicionales de la filosofía. Si queremos una justicia global que incluya a cada sí mismo, es necesario repensar la perspectiva tradicional que domina la discusión sobre derecho internacional. Necesitamos una reflexión crítica sobre la modernidad y la globalización actual. Esta crítica permitirá proponer una nueva Ilustración donde lo global pueda vincularse con el cosmopolitismo y el universalismo moral. El reto será construir una globalización justa con todos y cada uno de los individuos que conforman la nueva ciudadanía global.

Global Justice and Foreign Policy: The Case of the European Union

Since its inception, the European Union has proclaimed an ambition to promote values and justice at the global level. In this paper, I discuss how we can assess a foreign policy that has such an ambition. There is no common understanding of how claims to justice beyond borders should be met. Further, in order to be relevant, any critical assessment of foreign policy must take into consideration the constraints of global politics, while at the same time not losing sight of normative requirements. In order to take heed of these concerns, I suggest an analytical framework based on three different conceptions of global justice. These conceptions come with strengths and weaknesses, as they prioritise some challenges to global justice over others. The differences between these conceptions facilitate the empirical effort of discerning inhibiting and facilitating factors for the conduct of a just foreign policy – of taking into account the constraints of global politics. At the same time, the framework acknowledges the contested nature of justice without compromising on the need to assess foreign policy practice against explicit normative criteria. The approach makes it possible for the analyst to provide a more nuanced assessment as well as one based on what might be considered feasible criteria for justice, and to specify the strengths and weaknesses of the observed foreign policy practice from different perspectives.

War and Global Public Reason

This article offers a new critical evaluation of the Rawlsian model of global public reason (‘GPR’), focusing on its ability to serve as a normative standard for guiding international diplomacy and deliberation in matters of war. My thesis is that, where war is concerned, the model manifests two fatal weaknesses. First, because it demands extensive neutrality over the moral status of persons – and in particular over whether they possess equal basic worth or value – out of respect for the beliefs of inegalitarian yet ‘decent’ societies, or ‘peoples’, Rawlsian GPR renders calculations of proportionality in war impossible. Second, because its content is provided by a conception of global justice (the so-called ‘Law of Peoples’) whose injunctions are addressed exclusively to peoples, as corporate agents, Rawlsian GPR pushes the moral evaluation of the independent wartime choices of individuals off the agenda of the global public forum altogether.

Is the debate on ‘global justice’ a global one? Some considerations in view of modern philosophy in Africa

At present, the debate on global justice, a debate which is at the core of global ethics, is largely being conducted by European and American scholars from different disciplines without taking into account views and concepts from other regions of the world, particularly, from the Global South. The lack of a truly intercultural, interreligious, and international exchange of ideas provokes doubts whether the concepts of global justice introduced so far are able to transcend regional and cultural horizons. The article introduces concepts of justice from African scholars, whose voices have remained marginal until now, like the Kenyan philosopher Henry Odera Oruka, the Ethiopian philosopher Teodros Kiros, and the debate on ubuntu, one of the most controversial concepts in southern Africa today. These concepts focus on issues that are seldom considered in the debate on global justice, such as the importance of bodily needs as a prerequisite for human beings to act as moral beings and the importance of human relationships and solidarity. The last part of the article discusses factors which lead to exclusion from the academic discourse and the question how we as scholars can work for more academic justice.

Global Health Care Justice, Delivery Doctors and Assisted Reproduction: Taking a Note From Catholic Social Teachings.

This article will examine the Catholic concept of global justice within a health care framework as it relates to women's needs for delivery doctors in the developing world and women's demands for assisted reproduction in the developed world. I will first discuss justice as a theory, situating it within Catholic social teachings. The Catholic perspective on global justice in health care demands that everyone have access to basic needs before elective treatments are offered to the wealthy. After exploring specific discrepancies in global health care justice, I will point to the need for delivery doctors in the developing world to provide basic assistance to women who hazard many pregnancies as a priority before offering assisted reproduction to women in the developed world. The wide disparities between maternal health in the developing world and elective fertility treatments in the developed world are clearly unjust within Catholic social teachings. I conclude this article by offering policy suggestions for moving closer to health care justice via doctor distribution.

Effects of Democratic Citizenship on Pursuing Global Justice

Throughout the world history one particular pattern is obvious that people in all nations desperately strive towards justice. What justice really means and what it entails can have many definitions and explanations ranging from liberty to equal distribution of opportunities, however it often can be also associated with such concepts as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Although, significant progress have been made in this direction, notably abolishment of slavery, introduction of universal suffrage in most countries, alleviation of poverty, adoption of universal declaration of human rights, severe problems such as authoritarian regimes, conflicts, terrorism, inequality, environmental hazards, human trafficking, inadequate living standards and widespread poverty still largely persists and haunt us. Despite significant differences in attitudes towards global justice from country to country, based on its size, economic power and political influence across the globe, the above mentioned positive steps has been still made, yet plenty of problems still largely remain. Hence, it is interesting to find out how this progress has been achieved, was it global democratic process, economic development or something else. Looking from the perspective of the post-Soviet country such as Georgia, in this paper, firstly, I would like to explore what the concepts of global justice and democratic citizenship mean and how they can be related to each other. Secondly, I would like to find out what is the current state of democracy in Georgia and to what extent active political participation along with strong civil society can influence on pursuing justice not only domestically but also globally. Finally, I would like to examine what are those domestic and global factors that might inhibit the people's aspiration to global justice.

Justicia global y seguridad humana en el contexto del cambio climático

The concept of global justice has inspired diverse reactions to market globalism. Although many of its challenges are still in force, they have acquired new meanings in the context of the economic, social and humanitarian crisis induced by the extreme phenomena associated with climate change. The constructs of democracy and justice, usually theorized in national contexts, may fail to function properly when applied to transnational contexts of problems, which can compromise the safety of individuals and communities (like those associated with climate change). A new frame, centred on the notion of human safety, is needed to consider crucial aspects in the relation between environmental crisis, unsustainable development and risk of authoritarian bias or violent conflict, with substantive implications for the concept of global justice and the democratic mechanisms of international governance.

Dejando atrás las fronteras. Las políticas migratorias ante las exigencias de la justicia global

This article deals with the reciprocal normative implications between the conceptions of global justice and citizenship on the one hand, and the definition of migration politics on the other hand. The investigation is carried out in four steps: first, there will be provided some reasons to overcome the state oriented focus of the theory of justice; then the worldwide poverty and the migration flows will be pointed out as problems that any modern theory of justice has to cope with; in a third step, it will be shown to what extent the national borders have to be regarded as obstacles for an implementation of a global conception of justice; and, finally, it will be argued for a redefinition of the notion of citizenship that is meant to build the normative horizon of migration politics.

Human Rights and Toleration in Rawls

In a Society of Peoples as Rawls conceives it, human rights function as “criteria for toleration.” This paper defends the conception of human rights that appears in Rawls’ The Law of Peoples as normatively and theoretically adequate. I claim that human rights function as criteria for determining whether or not a given society or legal system can be tolerated. As such, “human rights” are not themselves basic facts or judgments or ascriptions, but rather the means by which we collectively attempt to secure public criteria for evaluating what can and cannot be tolerated. Human rights are one expression of the fundamental value commitments of Political Liberalism to reasonableness and tolerance. If correct, this account provides good reasons for concluding that Political Liberalism has a normatively adequate conception of global justice.

Review: No Easy Fix

NO EASY FIX Global Responses to Internal Wars and Crimes against Humanity Patricia Marchak Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008. 376pp, $34.95 cloth ISBN 978-0773533684Dealing with sovereign regimes that have perpetrated crimes against the human rights of their own citizens is a perennial problem for the international community, that nebulous and faceless force. Related to this issue, and perhaps the real crux ofthe problem, is the fact that countries remain at odds over the interrelated questions of state sovereignty and the legitimacy of foreign intervention. The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 - which the White House initially justified on the grounds of international security and, subsequently, by appealing to humanitarian considerations - raised exactly these concerns and demonstrated how elusive a global consensus on these issues remains. The ongoing conflict in Darfur poses similar problems. In western countries, public pressure for intervention to stop what many consider to be a genocide highlights the tension between state sovereignty and humanitarian principles. The Sudanese governmenf s refusal to recognize the authority ofthe International Criminal Court - which has attempted to bring to trial various members ofthe regime - casts doubt on the ability of international organizations to discharge their stated responsibilities.Patricia Marchak's book attempts to make sense of these issues. It is the valiant effort of a gifted and erudite scholar. If her conclusion is sobering, the blame hardly lies with her. The weight of her subject hangs heavily over every page. As Marchak herself admits, she is skeptical about the international community's ability to uphold an effective system of global justice. Humanitarian intervention, she notes, may be an idea whose time has arrived, but it has arrived in the context of a failing state system, and the one organization that has the moral authority to address the problems lacks the military capacity and the political will to do so (38). Concepts such as the responsibility to protect, a subject that forms the basis for one ofthe book's most convincing chapters, are, Marchak notes, often strong in sentiment but weak in execution. A further issue contributing to the author's doubts is the ability of international law - a western-centric and western-oriented concept - to develop into a legitimate and universally-accepted legal regime.But despite this skepticism, No Easy Fix avoids crass pessimism. Marchak has spent the last decade developing a solid reputation as a specialist in political ethics and its relation to state governance, and she is clearly aware of the implications of her subject. Her 2003 book Reigns of Terror examined various theoretical and historical approaches to cases involving state crimes against citizens, and argued for a theoretical connection between state systems and humanitarian crimes. The goal was to explain why states choose or are able to commit violent crimes against their own citizens.In many ways, Reigns of Terror is a prequel to No Easy Fix. While the former examined the mechanisms that allow state-sponsored violence to develop, the latter focuses on the repercussions of such violence, including the international community's attempts to bring justice to divided societies, the ability of these societies to come to terms with their legacies of violence, and the flaws inherent in the very concept of global justice. …

Review: Global Justice, Global Institutions

GLOBAL JUSTICE, GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS Daniel Weinstock, editor Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2007. 386 pp, $44.95 paper (ISBN 9780919491311)How should we think about the subjects, scope, and demands of justice at the global level? What institutional implications follow from various conceptions of global justice? Does the globalization of claims of distributive justice require the globalization of democratic institutions or a world state? In addition, what can philosophy contribute to the resolution of contemporary global problems such as environmental crises and severe poverty? These types of questions preoccupy the distinguished cast of contemporary political theorists and philosophers contributing to this robust edited volume, which originally appeared as a 2005 supplementary volume ofthe Canadian Journal of Philosophy.The stimulating collection of essays reveals some emerging as well as enduring divides among theorists in considering global justice and its institutional implications. One of these divides has to do with the moral significance of the distinction between the international and the domestic. Can we think about justice between political societies in essentially the same way that we have conceived it within a single political society? Or should there be a built-in asymmetry between principles of justice within political societies and between them (69)? The cosmopolitan theorists in this volume - Charles Jones, Simon Caney, Cecile Fabre, Kok-Chor Tan, and Gillian Brock - offer one answer to this question. They posit the moral equality of persons and see individuals as the ultimate unit of moral concern in both domestic and global relations. Given this starting point, the international-domestic distinction has no moral significance. As Fabre argues, it is fundamentally unjust that one's prospects for leading a fulfilling life depend so much on the arbitrary or contingent fact of where one resides.Ofthe thinkers in this group, Tan and Brock offer the most interesting arguments. Both acknowledge principles or values that are conventionally understood to conflict with cosmopolitan accounts of distributive justice, yet both show that such principles or values have moral force only when global distributive justice is operational. For example, Brock asks whether citizens of affluent countries have any robust obligations to work for poverty eradication worldwide. Her relational conception of economic desert leads her to argue that if one endorses desert-based arguments for the acquisition of property rights through market transactions, one should be concerned that the lack of fair global background conditions perverts the principle of equality of opportunity, undermining all claims of desert in the economic sphere (125). Tan's contribution demonstrates that defenders of patriotism must be concerned with achieving globally just conditions, otherwise their practices of giving priority to compatriots' interests and concerns constitute a morally illegitimate form of favouritism. Although James Bohman is not a cosmopolitan theorist, he presents a similar argument. His major claim is that democracy must be disciplined by justice, which means that democrats must be open to the globalization of democratic institutions and committed to realizing the global conditions conducive to democratic moral legitimacy.The two strongest essays in this volume, by Joseph Heath and Nancy Kokaz, challenge the settled divides between cosmopolitans, patriots, and realists, and make important and exciting theoretical and practical contributions to thinking about global justice and global institutions. Both essays clarify and elaborate on the work of John Rawls, the leading liberal political philosopher ofthe 20th century. When Rawls's last work, The Law of Peoples, was published in 1999, leading liberal theorists such as Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge criticized it for failing to extend liberal principles of justice properly to the global realm. …

Global justice: A democratic perspective

Global justice refers to world politics and worldwide actions, relations, practices and institutions. Are they just? This question presupposes that we know the meaning of justice. Although the abstract concept of justice is universal, its substance and direction are not. Like almost all ethical concepts, the notion of justice is constructed metaphorically. The core meaning of justice is that similar cases should be treated in the same way, and given what they truly deserve. However, there are a large number of basic models of justice. Various theories and ideologies of justice articulate a carefully organized story of justice comprising a selected set of (largely) mutually consistent models. A particular conception of justice already constitutes many transnational practices, including practices of international law and global governance. In this dominant conception, free markets are best for justice. If markets are sufficiently competitive, justice will prevail in the sense of a scalar distribution model—the more you contribute, the more you get. I conclude by making two substantial points. First, there seem to be good reasons to stress the (generally greater) plausibility of alternative conceptions of global justice. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, is the recognition of the relativist nature of struggles between models and sentiments of justice, giving rise to a quest to democratize systems of global governance. Given how prone justice has been to absolutist and also violent interpretations, it seems that the real ethical and practical-political problem is how to effect necessary and desirable institutional changes by means of peaceful change.