Theory Of Global Justice Research Articles

Internalist and Integrationist Theories of (Global) Justice

The global justice debate has increasingly moved toward the analysis of concrete issues in global politics, such as trade, migration, or climate change. This raises a methodological question: should the demands of justice in these domains be theorized independently or in conjunction with one another? Integrationists have championed the latter approach, arguing that it is better suited to guide our practical judgments. In contrast, internalists maintain that each domain is governed by its own set of principles. This paper defends the plausibility of the internalist approach against integrationist challenges. By examining different interpretations of internalism, it first seeks to provide a clearer overview of the methodological dispute. It then analyzes various arguments for integrationism, showing that their implications are more limited than their proponents believe. Finally, it focuses on the question of practical guidance, highlighting the value of idealized domain-specific theorizing in guiding transitions toward just arrangements.

Book Review: Global Climate Justice Theory and Practice

The book "Global Climate Justice: Theory and Practice" provides a comprehensive view of climate justice from diverse theoretical approaches by exploring diverse perspectives on the distribution of CO2 and climate responsibility. The text examines controversial viewpoints, such as the right of oil companies to receive compensation for profit losses, as well as historical approaches that consider the persistent effects of colonization on states' capacity to address climate change and the consequent responsibility of colonizing states. The review emphasizes the historical context driving the need to implement environmental justice. Additionally, it highlights the diversity of theoretical perspectives presented in the book and their relevance in formulating international policies.

What, if anything at all, do African societies themselves owe to their own citizens in terms of health?

The debate about global justice and health has focused so far on what developed countries owe to developing countries to advance global public health. Less attention has however been paid to the health obligations of developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, towards their own people and how this may affect considerations about justice and health in a globalized world. This paper challenges the implicit presumption in global justice theories that African societies, because they are poor, have weaker health obligations toward their own peoples. It makes two main claims. First, despite their economic shortcomings, African governments should have the primary responsibility to protect the domestic side of the human right to health of their own citizens and dumping their own health obligations on rich countries is a disservice to the overall goal of global justice in health. Second, the health obligations of African societies towards their own people should be assessed and grounded also on their potential abilities, and not exclusively on their current abilities. Global justice in health cannot be reduced to what rich countries should do. It must include also what developing countries from Sub-Saharan Africa should do beyond accepting or managing any health assistance.

Thomas Nagel’s Theory of Justice

Theories of justice have become the central theme of liberal philosophy over the past century. Among these, one devoted to the problem of global justice, which has come to be particularly relevant at the turn of the century, deserves particular attention. Among liberal theories of global justice numerous competing conceptions have emerged; they could be presented as three broad lines of argumentation: ‘moral cosmopolitanism’, ‘political cosmopolitanism’ and ‘statism’. Thomas Nagel’s Hobbesian conception of global justice has become one of the most influential ‘statist’ theories. Having used the key points of Hobbes’ theory, Nagel significantly modified his original ideas. This allowed him, first, to invoke the principles of egalitarian justice at the level of the state and, second, to argue that international relations are not the territory of a moral vacuum. These modifications led to a two-level theory of ethics in which justice can exist only in separate sovereign states while the requirements of minimal humanitarian morality apply at the supranational level. As a result, Nagel’s theory of justice at the level of the state proved to be highly logical and persuasive, as well as able to withstand criticism from its opponents; whereas the requirements of minimal humanitarian morality seemed inconsistent and unrelated to justice in separate sovereign states. This has led to an ambivalent attitude towards Nagel’s theory. This article focuses on Nagel’s theory of global justice and the debate surrounding his statist arguments. This article also offers further criticism of the problems and prospects of Nagel’s theory of global justice.

Global justice and the opportunity costs of conservation.

Opportunity costs can represent a significant portion of the costs associated with conservation projects and frequently outstrip other kinds of cost. They are typically understood to refer to the benefits someone would have obtained if conservation projects had not required them to give up current activities, such as farming or hunting or if the land had been available for uses other than conservation. This familiar way of identifying opportunity costs is flawed, however, because it threatens to condone, or take advantage of, the injustices that many people face that affect their opportunities. I integrated ideas from the political theory of global justice to examine how the analysis of opportunity costs illustrates the importance of considering conservation and issues of global justice together, rather than thinking about them in isolation. I distinguish four baselines for defining opportunity costs. A status quo baseline defines opportunity costs by asking what people would have earned had a conservation project not happened. A willingness to accept baseline defines them by asking people what it would take to make them indifferent to whether a conservation project takes place or not. An antipoverty baseline suggests that opportunity costs have been met when people affected by a project are not left in poverty. An egalitarian baseline suggests opportunity costs have been met when people are not left in relative disadvantage, with worse than average opportunities. I argue that the egalitarian baseline is the most acceptable from the point of view of justice. Such a baseline would suggest that, in practice, many of the world's poor are being unjustly treated, or even exploited, as a result of conservation activities.

Deparochializing global justice: against epistemic withdrawal, towards critical departure

ABSTRACT This article critiques the ‘withdrawal approach’ to deparochializing global justice and argues for an approach that views ‘departure’ from mainstream theorization as integral to truly critical engagement. It introduces Aakash Singh Rathore’s approach to deparochialization – purportedly founded on Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice – as an example of ‘withdrawal approach’ which advocates repudiation of the West-centric and ‘profession-oriented’ academic debate on global justice, and promotion of context-sensitive theories. I argue that Rathore’s ‘withdrawal approach’ springs from an inaccurate reading of Sen’s The Idea of Justice and hence overlooks the critical spirit of Sen’s engagement with the global heritage of ideas and 'critical departure’ from parochial theories. This article further explores three analytical forms of parochialism that dominant theories of global justice may suffer from: epistemic, conceptual and descriptive. Using the case of India’s superrich and their culpability in global poverty, I demonstrate the parochial construction of ‘duties’ in Thomas Pogge’s theory of global poverty. I argue that deparochializing global justice, involving critical engagement with existing theorization along conceptual and descriptive lines, can illuminate a new way forward in global justice research.

Should Animals Have Political Rights?

Should Animals Have Political Rights?

Famine, remittances, and global justice

Famine is not on the global justice theory agenda. Two plausible reasons explain why. First, that global justice theory has moved toward a concern with international justice and reforming existing international organizations and away from what was considered to be a question of global ethics. And second, that famine was influentially identified by Amartya Sen as question of the domestic political economy and thus indeed a domestic justice concern. However, the political economy of famine has changed: it has transnationalised. I argue that famine should be on the global justice theory agenda, but that to do so requires that global justice theory reform itself first. The argument unfolds in three steps. Initially, I diagnose the benefits and constraints of methodological nationalism in famine studies and global justice theorization. I then set out an exploratory case study of the transnationalisation of famine, focusing on Somalia and taking note of the role of remittances, transnational social and economic networks, the consequences of de-risking, and the emergence of cash-transfers programs. Finally, I consider in more normative depth the transnational entitlement map of famine including: (i) transnational remittance networks (not national safety nets); (ii) global financial regulation (beyond international law); and (iii) diaspora politics (not democracy), where the parenthetic juxtapositions signal dissimilarities with current thinking about famine and global justice.

Global justice in the context of transnational surrogacy: an African bioethical perspective

The ongoing debate on how best to regulate international commercial surrogacy defies consensus, as the most cogent normative and jurisprudential grounds for and against non-altruistic surrogacy remain controversial. This paper contributes to the debate by focusing on social justice issues arising from transnational, moneymaking surrogacy, with a focus on the Global South. It argues that existing theoretical perspectives on balancing interests, rights, privileges, and resources in the context of cross-border surrogacy—such as cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, liberal feminism, radical feminism, and neorealism—are not sufficient to treat the question of justice underpinning transnational surrogacy in the Global South. An Afro-communal theory of social justice is proposed as an alternative model for addressing the shortcomings in existing global justice theories. Building on Thaddeus Metz’s construction of Afro-communal social theory and a bioethic of communion, this article reveals the fundamental nature of injustices in the Global South surrogacy foray. This approach provides prima facie grounds for making commercial surrogacy more just in the evolving global order.

The Right Recognition of Rights

AbstractIn Reimagining Human Rights: Religion and the Common Good (Georgetown University Press, 2021), the noted theologian William R. O'Neill has undertaken a task as difficult as it is important in reimagining the theory and practice of human rights and global justice in a world where both are on the wane. The ongoing changes are often too dispersed and evolve too slowly for this reimagining to be undertaken by conventional political and diplomatic means. Learning to speak a new language of human rights requires, as O'Neill insists, social action and the voice of moral protest and storytelling. Moreover, reimagining rights requires new ways of thinking as well as acting and seeks the guidance of critical interpretation and theorizing. This is a book that learns from political liberators as much as from creative thinkers, and one that hears the searing testimony of victims of torture and the hope‐giving theology of memory, neighborliness, and love.

Participatory parity as a way forward for critical internationalisation studies

ABSTRACT In recent years, there has been sustained criticism of current practices of higher education internationalisation in wealthy industrialised countries. This criticism is underpinned by an increasingly broad range of theoretical perspectives, resulting in calls for change which range from the minimal to the radical. In this paper, I reflect on the current state of the ‘critical internationalisation studies’ literature, arguing that existing critiques suffer from a number of shortcomings. In particular, I highlight that much of this work causes a ‘problem of displacement’ whereby issues of (mis)recognition eclipse issues of distributive justice. As such, the potential of internationalisation to contribute to solving practical issues is underplayed. The argument is made that in problematising arguments for the use of internationalisation activities to contribute to solving practical issues in the Global South, this literature has the potential to demoralise those seeking action. The second part of the paper makes a case for the utility of normative global justice theory in critical internationalisation studies, outlining an alternative vision of two internationalisation activities through the lens of Nancy Fraser’s Scales of Justice. The analysis highlights how current practices create injustice through ‘misframing’, as international student recruitment and global partnerships are framed at the nation-state level, denying representation to those affected by the actions of universities and by government policy in wealthy countries.

Introduction

Introduction

Sustainable Energy for All? Assessing Global Distributive Justice in the Green Climate Fund’s Energy Finance

AbstractThere is growing international attention to the goal of universal energy access. Despite this, large financial gaps remain a major obstacle for realizing global energy justice for all communities. Drawing on political theories of global distributive justice, this article develops and applies a framework for how multilateral development assistance for energy projects can be evaluated in relation to three guiding principles. First, the global difference principle asserts that resources should be distributed to maximize the condition of the least well-off humans. Second, the local benefits principle asserts that resources should be distributed in ways that enhance the public goods of local communities, particularly those that are historically marginalized. Third, the global equality of opportunity principle asserts that all social groups and states have the capabilities to equitably access institutional structures relevant to the distribution of resources. We apply this framework to an analysis of finance for all energy projects within the Green Climate Fund (GCF) from 2015 to 2018. In doing so, we offer a nuanced understanding of the successes and failures regarding the performance of the GCF’s energy portfolio in relation to global distributive justice.

Pluralist internationalism, global justice and international student recruitment in the UK.

The number of international students in the UK has risen considerably in recent years. These students, now constituting around one-fifth of the student body in the UK universities, are viewed primarily in terms of the economic benefits they bring to the host country, and there has been little explicit discussion around equity principles that might inform international student recruitment. Responding to calls for further consideration of the ethics of this situation, this article offers a novel perspective by drawing on a ‘pluralist internationalist’ theory of global justice. This theory grants unique normative relevance to the state whilst at the same time embedding the state within multiple other grounds of justice that are global in scope, thereby contributing to the disentanglement of some of the normative disagreements that characterise debates about global justice. The suggestions that result from applying this theory offer a substantive alternative both to the nationally oriented assumptions of current policy and to other contributions to the debate within academia which have drawn on the cosmopolitan tradition of global justice.

Just Responsibility: A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice. By Brooke A. Ackerly. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewsJust Responsibility: A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice. By Brooke A. Ackerly. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Elora Halim ChowdhuryElora Halim ChowdhuryUniversity of Massachusetts Boston Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Signs Volume 47, Number 1Autumn 2021 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/715734 Views: 79Total views on this site For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Sacrificing the local to support the national: Politics, sustainability, and governance in Nepal’s hydropower paradox

Developing run-of-the-river (ROR) hydropower can pose a sustainability paradox. The paradox can occur when countries prioritize hydropower development to achieve national-level sustainable development targets while failing to include project-affected communities in planning processes. This research developed a comparative study examining the ways social and political relations were articulated between hydropower companies and project-affected communities across 12 ROR hydropower sites in the Gandaki River basin of Nepal. The study details how the introduction of hydropower can feasibly offer local communities coveted benefits such as increased water and electricity access and availability. Outcomes of ROR hydropower development, however, were not uniform across study sites and spatially uneven development was manifest. Consequently, many of Nepal’s ROR hydropower projects exacerbate social and political inequalities in Nepal’s mountain river basins, which in turn fuel hydropower driven conflicts. Drawing on theories of global change, energy justice, and political ecology, this research highlights opportunities currently being neglected in Nepal to bring local communities into processes linked to national sustainable development goals and targets and to address injustices embedded in the development of ROR hydropower resources.

On the Universal Power of Socioeconomic Rights: A Comparison Between Thomas Pogge and Rainer Forst

Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.

Global justice theory as alternative to the Rawlsian theory of justice in contexts of multiple domination

No contexto multifacetado atual, há atores que se beneficiam do design estrutural mundial ao mesmo passo em que a diversos outros são impostas barreiras que dificultam o acesso às riquezas - as quais, defende-se, em havendo uma arquitetura distribucional global voltada à equidade, poderiam ser melhor alocadas, de maneira a beneficiar um maior número de indivíduos. Nesse passo, o presente artigo, utilizando-se, principalmente, de método de pesquisa bibliográfico, possui o objetivo de demonstrar que a visão rawlsiana, ainda que cabível em sociedades herméticas, é inadequada para um mundo submerso em desigualdades econômicas altamente maculadas pela forma de acumulação histórica, predatória e usurpadora, imposta pelos países mais desenvolvidos economicamente em relação aos pobres globais. Assim, busca demonstrar, por uma análise de conjunto e com referência na teoria de justiça global consoante avançada por Thomas Pogge, a maneira pela qual a estruturação global ainda hoje prejudica, seletivamente - i.e., principalmente por meio dos privilégios internacionais sobre recursos e sobre empréstimos -, países, mantendo-os - ou, mais frequentemente, suas populações - em condição de pobreza.

What Kind of Functionings Matter for Global Justice for Children?

ABSTRACT In this paper I am interested in the ‘currency of justice’ question, which is important for a theory of global justice for children, based within the capability approach. My paper is structured in three parts. In the first part I will examine the distinction between capabilities and functionings and consider the role this plays in global justice for children. In the second part I will discuss the temporality of functionings as a key feature for understanding global justice for children. It is important to distinguish here between the timing (when children have certain functionings) and the duration of functionings (for how long children have those functionings). In the third and final part I will discuss the role of specific functionings which have been termed in other debates ‘kindergoods’ or the ‘intrinsic goods of childhood’. I will argue in this regard that child-specificity can have different meanings, that some functionings can only be had by children and that some functionings are particularly valuable only for children despite the fact that adults can also have them.

Fortress World: Refugee Protection during (and after) the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the fragility of the international refugee protection system. It turns out that on account of public health concerns, many high-income countries, Canada included, are quick to abandon their legal duties with respect to the right of asylum and non-refoulement, as well as their commitment to responsibility sharing in the context of refugee resettlement. This has led to an immobility crisis among asylum seekers and refugees, exacting a heavy toll on this already-marginalized group.This paper explores such impact of COVID-19 related travel restrictions on international refugee protection. It begins by providing a bird’s-eye view of the global situation before zeroing on the Canadian context. It shows that as the global demand for asylum persists, travel restrictions either trap asylum seekers and refugees in precarious circumstances or force them to attempt more dangerous routes to arrive at intended destinations. Leaning on international law as well as Thomas Pogge’s theory of global justice, this paper argues that affluent countries have a duty to ameliorate these harms perpetrated against one of the world’s most vulnerable populations.