“A Pragmatic Compromise between the Ideal and the Realistic”: Debates over Human Rights, Global Distributive Justice and Minimum Core Obligations in the 1980s

2019 ◽  
pp. 157-185
Author(s):  
Julia Dehm
Author(s):  
Petra Gümplová

AbstractThis paper contrasts conceptions of global distributive justice focused on natural resources with human rights–based approach. To emphasize the advantages of the latter, the paper analyzes three areas: (1) the methodology of normative theorizing about natural resources, (2) the category of natural resources, and (3) the view of the system of sovereignty over natural resources. Concerning the first, I argue that global justice conceptions misconstrue the claims made to natural resources and offer conceptions which are practically unfeasible. Concerning the second, I show that contemporary philosophy of justice downplays the plurality of meanings resources have for collectives and argue that conflicts over natural resources can best be accounted for using human rights. Finally, the paper looks at sovereignty over natural resources and argues that rather than dismissing it as unjustifiable on moral grounds, it should be reformed in line with valid principles of international law, most importantly with human rights.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREAS FOLLESDAL

AbstractShould state borders matter for claims of distributive justice? The article explores, only to reject, the best reasons for an ‘Anti-Cosmopolitan’ position which grants some minimum international obligations, including social and economic human rights. At the same time this Anti-Cosmopolitanism rejects distinctly distributive principles of justice, familiar from discussions of justice among compatriots: There are no further limits on permissible global inequalities. ‘Anti-Cosmopolitans’ do not deny that the tangled web of domestic and international institutions has a massive impact on individuals, their life plans and opportunities, albeit often indirectly and surreptitiously. What they deny is that claims to equality or limits to inequality should apply across state borders. The article explores what it is about states that can justify such a disjunct in the normative claims individuals have against each other. Several arguments about such alleged salient aspects of states and their constitutions are considered, but are found lacking. The main conclusion is to challenge the reasons Anti-Cosmopolitans offer against bringing distributive principles to the ‘Global Basic Structure’.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oisin Suttle

Abstract What role should concerns about distributive justice play in international investment law? This paper argues that answers to fundamental and contestable questions of social and global distributive justice are a necessary, if implicit, premise of international investment law. In particular, they shape our views on the purpose of investment law, and in turn determine the scope of authority that investment law can claim, and that states should accord it. The implausibility of achieving international consensus on these questions constitutes a substantial objection to the harmonization of investment law or the consistent operation of a multilateral investment court.


Author(s):  
Simon Caney

This chapter explores the relevance of facts and empirical enquiry for the normative project of enquiring what principles of distributive justice, if any, apply at the global level. Is empirical research needed for this kind of enquiry? And if so, how? Claims about global distributive justice often rest on factual assumptions. Seven different ways in which facts about national, regional and global politics (and hence empirical research into global politics) might inform accounts of global distributive justice are examined. A deep understanding of the nature of global politics and the world economy (and thus empirical research on it) is needed: to grasp the implications of principles of global distributive justice; to evaluate such principles for their attainability and political feasibility; to assess their desirability; and, first, to conceptualize the subject-matter of global distributive justice and to formulate the questions that accounts of global distributive justice need to answer.


2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-226
Author(s):  
JOSEPH C. d'ORONZIO

The ideal of universal human rights is arguably the most potent moral concept marking the modern world. Its accelerated fruition in the last half of the twentieth century has created a powerful political force, laying the groundwork for future generations to extend and apply. Whereas anything resembling international legal status for human rights had to wait for the post-Nazi era, the bold proclamations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) loosened a revolutionary force with endless potential for application to the full range of human endeavors. The roots of this movement can be traced to each and every era in which the vulnerable and powerless sought justification to oppose arbitrary domination. Its roots are, therefore, deep and wide.


1999 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Schramme

AbstractAlternative approaches in the discussion of distributive justice differ in their answers to the question „equality of what“? In this essay I intend to ask instead ,why equality?" The article rejects several arguments in favour of distributive equality, mainly on the grounds that they confuse two different kinds of justice, namely ,formal’ justice (equal respect) and distributive justice. The ideal of distributive equality is based on comparisons but equal respect does not necessarily involve relational considerations. Subsequently I will consider equality of opportunity which appears on first sight to be the most promising account. However, I will point out that this approach is not convincing as an attempt to give everyone the chance to live a good life. Finally I will submit that only a theory of absolute needs is adequate.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.Ahsin Thohari

Abstract: Pancasila is the ideal of the state (staatsidee). It also serves as legal ideal (rechtsidee), fundamental of philosophy (philosofische grondslag), fundamental state norm (staatsfundamentalnorm), and view of life (weltanschauung). It is a flexible ideology that can be drawn, pressed, and broaden to cover almost all circumstances. The perspective and mindset forming the constitution concerning human rights, and citizen constitutional rights had changed due to the changes in worldview attitudes, internationalism, and cosmopolitanism about human and constitutional rights. The constitution in Indonesia had changed several times. However, the provision of the civil rights in the Indonesian constitutions or known as constitutional rights were not eliminated in the 1945 Constitution (since august 18th 1945), the 1949 Union Republic of Indonesia Constitution, the 1950 Temporary Constitution, the 1945 constitution (after the President Decree in July 5th,1959) and 1945 constitution after amendment. Pancasila, also known as five principles, has the function as the bedrock of Indonesia. However, as a philosophical principle, Pancasila can interpret in myriad perspective, potentially used for multiple purposes. Abstrak: Pancasila sebagai cita negara (staatsidee). Pancasila yang juga berfungsi sebagai cita hukum (rechtsidee), dasar filsafat (philosofische grondslag), norma fundamental negara (staatsfundamentalnorm), dan pandangan hidup (weltanschauung). Pancasila adalah ideologi yang bersifat fleksibel yang dapat ditarik, ditekan, dan dilebarkan untuk mencakup hampir semua keadaan. Cara pandang dan pola pikir pembentuk Undang-Undang Dasar (UUD) terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia, konstitusi, dan hak-hak konstitusional warga negara mengalami perubahan yang diakibatkan oleh perubahan sikap-sikap pandangan dunia, internasionalisme dan kosmopolitanisme tentang HAM dan hak konstitusional. Konstitusi di Indonesia telah mengalami beberapa kali perubahan, namun ketentuan-ketentuan tentang hak-hak warga negara dalam konstitusi-konstitusi Indonesia atau yang lebih dikenal dengan hak konstitusional tidak pernah hilang, baik dalam UUD 1945 yang berlaku mulai 18 Agustus 1945, Konstitusi RIS 1949, UUDS 1950, UUD 1945 setelah Dekrit Presiden tanggal 5 Juli 1959, dan UUD 1945 setelah Perubahan. Pancasila, yang juga dikenal sebagai lima prinsip, berfungsi sebagai landasan negara Indonesia. Namun, sebagai prinsip filosofis, pancasila dapat ditafsikan ke berbagai perspektif yang dapat digunakan untuk berbagai tujuan. Kata Kunci: Cita Hukum (Rechtsidee), Pancasila, Hak Konstitusional


Author(s):  
Xudong FANG

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.本文由兩個部分構成,第一部分闡述了不反對同性婚姻合法化的理由,逐一討論了對同性婚姻合法化的五種反對意見,認為它們都不成立。第二部分論述了儒家推崇異性婚姻的原因,其主要考慮是同性婚姻不能像異性婚姻那樣可以提供倫理的完整性。作者強調,作為公民權利,同性婚姻可以被自由追求,但作為儒家則以異性婚姻為婚姻的理想模式。前者事關權利,後者事關“善”,有各自的界限,不得逾越。This paper consists of two parts. In the first part, the author refutes, one by one, five objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including arguments grounded in naturalness, origin, reductio ad absurdum, compromising traditional marriage, and Jiang Qing’s doctrine of particular human rights. The strongest reason for advocating the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doctrine of equal rights. As contemporary people, we have no reason to deny that all individuals have equal rights. The second part discusses why Confucianism prefers heterosexual marriage. The main consideration is that same-sex marriages cannot provide ethical integrity, as heterosexual marriages do. The author emphasizes that, as a civil right, same-sex marriage can be pursued freely, but for a Confucian, heterosexual marriage is the ideal mode of marriage. The former concerns what is “right,” whereas the latter relates to what is “good.” There is an insurmountable boundary between right and good.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 423 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document