scholarly journals A Boundedly Rational Analysis of Global Distributive Justice

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 99-123
Author(s):  
Alexandru Volacu ◽  
Iris-Patricia Golopenta
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Identification Problem ◽  
Rational Analysis ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Complete Failure ◽  
Justice Theories ◽  
National Governments

In the present paper we analyze two prominent global distributive justice theories, i.e. Pogge’s Global Resource Dividend theory (1994) and Dorsey’s maxificing welfarism (2005) under an assumption of bounded rationality. We consider that the agencies responsible for distributing resources are informationally constrained in regard to the assessment of economic positions in society and cognitively constrained in regard to the decision making process within the agency. We argue that under these conditions the distributive patterns prescribed by both theories can be severely distorted. Further, in Dorsey’s case bounded rationality can even lead to a complete failure of the theory, since not only are the resulting distributions sub-optimal if we introduce the possibility for a single mistake in the identification process, but they can also be completely redundant by prescribing distributions which are not capable of lifting a single citizen to the minimum level required for the fulfillment of basic needs. We further show that for both theories the identification problem becomes more severe and that the agencies are more susceptible to make mistakes in circumstances of extreme poverty, i.e. the circumstances primarily targeted by the theories. Aside from this main result, we also obtain three secondary results: 1. we extend the ongoing debates in political philosophy between ideal and non-ideal theories and in particular between fact-insensitivity and fact-sensitivity, 2. we provide a preliminary defense of a proportional distributive principle for global justice and 3. we provide a new starting point for the construction of arguments regarding the nature of the agency (e.g. global government, national governments, UN institutions, international NGOs) entitled to distribute resources in global justice theories.

Justice Across Borders

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Blake
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Philosophical Analysis ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Global Institutions ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Arena ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines how philosophical concepts of distributive justice ought to be applied at the global level. There has been a great deal of philosophical interest in this topic in recent years, and the field has quickly grown to include some sophisticated analyses of how we might think about global distributive justice. This chapter examines this field, and argues that it must become more sophisticated still in order to adequately deal with the complexities of the global arena. In particular, the article argues that we have reason to examine more precisely the nature of global institutions—what powers they actually have, and what it is that they might plausibly hope to become—as a key focus of our philosophical analysis. The relationship between political and distributive justice, in particular, ought to be made a particular focus in our efforts to understand the nature of global justice.

Neoliberalism versus distributional autonomy: the skipped step in rawls’s the law of peoples

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-181
Author(s):  
William A. Edmundson ◽  
Matthew R. Schrepfer
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Minimum Degree ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Law Of Peoples ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
The Law

AbstractDebates about global distributive justice focus on the gulf between the wealthy North and the impoverished South, rather than on issues arising between liberal democracies. A review of John Rawls’s approach to international justice discloses a step Rawls skipped in his extension of his original-position procedure. The skipped step is where a need for the distributional autonomy of sovereign liberal states reveals itself. Neoliberalism denies the possibility and the desirability of distributional autonomy. A complete Rawlsian account of global justice shows the necessity and possibility of a charter between liberal states, assuring each a proper minimum degree of distributional autonomy

Global Distributive Justice: An Egalitarian Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 139-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Fabre
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Basic Needs ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Distribution Of Resources ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
National Boundaries

A good deal of political theory over the last fifteen years or so has been shaped by the realization that one cannot, and ought not, consider the distribution of resources within a country in isolation from the distribution of resources between countries. Thus, thinkers such as Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge advocate extensive global distributive policies; others, such as Charles Jones and David Miller, explicitly reject the view that egalitarian principles of justice should apply globally and claim that national communities have only duties to help other countries be viable economically and meet the basic needs of their members. In the global justice debate, pretty much all parties acknowledge that we have obligations of distributive justice to for-eigners. The question is how strong those obligations are, and in particular whether national boundaries can make any difference to the distribution of resources between members of different countries.

Global Justice: The Terrors of Interdependence

2002 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-129
Author(s):  
Bill Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Economic Interdependence ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
First World

This article reflects on the events of 11th September, 2001, in their immediate aftermath. Globalisation has brought economic interdependence without institutions for global distributive justice. The challenge for social policy of greater mobility of people, both within and between states, is as pressing as the problems of security highlighted by those events. These issues will demand attention long after the ‘war against terrorism’ has abated, because rich First World countries can no longer insulate themselves from the effects of poverty and injustice in the developing world.

scholarly journals Revisiting the Common Ownership of the Earth: A Democratic Critique of Global Distributive Justice Theories

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiaan Boonen ◽  
Nicolas Brando
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Public Property ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Justice Theories ◽  
Property Regime

Many theories of global distributive justice are based on the assumption that all humans hold common ownership of the earth. As the earth is finite and our actions interconnect, we need a system of justice that regulates the potential appropriation of the common earth to ensure fairness. According to these theories, imposing limits and distributive obligations on private and public property arrangements may be the best mechanism for governing common ownership. We present a critique of the assumption that this issue can be solved within the private–public property regime, arguing that the boundaries of this regime should not be taken for granted and that the growing literature on the democratic commons movement suggests how this can be accomplished. We consider that, if the earth is defined as a common, the private– public property paradigm must be open to questioning, and democratic commoners’ activities should be considered. 

International Distributive Justice

2001 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 974-997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Caney
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Special Duties

The literature on global justice contains a number of distinct approaches. This article identifies and reviews recent work in four commonly found in the literature. First there is an examination of the cosmopolitan contention that distributive principles apply globally. This is followed by three responses to the cosmopolitanism, – the nationalist emphasis on special duties to co-nationals, the society of states claim that principles of global distributive justice violate the independence of states and the realist claim that global justice is utopian and that states should advance national interest.

scholarly journals Normative View of Natural Resources—Global Redistribution or Human Rights–Based Approach?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Gümplová
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Contemporary Philosophy ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Human Rights Based Approach

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.

scholarly journals Political Membership in the Contractarian Defense of Cosmopolitanism

2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Ypi
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
The Social ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
The Veil ◽  
Political Communities ◽  
Sense Of Justice ◽  
Political Membership

AbstractThis article assesses the recent use of contractarian strategies for the justification of cosmopolitan distributive principles. It deals in particular with the cosmopolitan critique of political membership and tries to reject the claim that political communities are arbitrary for the scope of global justice. By focusing on the circumstances of justice, the nature of the parties, the veil of ignorance, and the sense of justice, the article tries to show that the cosmopolitan critique of political membership modifies the contractarian premises in a way that is both unwarranted and unnecessary. While failing to establish principles of global distributive justice, existing cosmopolitan adaptations of the social contract device simply weaken the method's justificatory potential.

Global (Distributive) Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siba Harb
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Equal Weight ◽  
Domestic Sphere ◽  
Fundamental Interest ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Political Communities ◽  
The Right ◽  
Institutional Order

Most philosophers agree that it is unjust for one’s life prospects to be determined by one’s race, gender, or social class. And most think that there are demanding duties on members of the same political community (co-citizens) to reduce inequalities that track these features of individuals. But philosophers strongly disagree about how to evaluate inequalities that track the country one is born in. Are global inequalities (inequalities among individuals living in different countries) as problematic and for the same reasons as domestic inequalities (inequalities among co-citizens)? The question of whether egalitarian principles of distributive justice extend globally, beyond the domestic sphere, has been the central question in the debate on global distributive justice. Statists argue that there is something normatively significant about the state, but not the global institutional order, which grounds one’s concerns with domestic inequalities, but not global inequalities. Global egalitarians argue that global inequalities are as unjust to the same extent and for the same reasons as domestic inequalities. The disagreement between both camps can be traced back to different normative, empirical, and methodological assumptions. Statists and global egalitarians can, however, converge on a number of important issues, and the debate can be advanced beyond the stalemate it has reached by investigating these issues of convergence. Significantly, statists can agree with global egalitarians that global justice requires equality of concern (the requirement that interests of all individuals have equal weight), and global egalitarians have reasons to take states seriously to the extent that having a world of states (or multiple political communities) can be shown to be compatible with the requirement of equal concern. Thus, it is important to work out whether individuals have a fundamental interest in being members of political communities, how that interest compares to their interests in opportunities, income, and wealth, and which institutional arraignments can advance these interests according to the right balance.

Persistent Tensions? International Legal Perspectives on ‘Other’ Foreign Fighters

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 539-573
Author(s):  
Marnie Lloydd
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Collective Good ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Strong Basis ◽  
Slowing Down ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
History Of ◽  
Foreign Fighters

This paper takes as its starting point the question of whether and to what extent States may have an international legal obligation towards other States to seek to prevent those within their jurisdiction from travelling abroad to fight with a non-State armed group in a foreign armed conflict. While there is a strong basis for such due diligence obligations regarding the prevention of terrorist activity, including Security Council Resolution 2178 (2014) on ‘foreign terrorist fighters’, the scope of responsibility is less clear regarding broader categories of foreigners participating in civil war, despite a long history of foreign volunteers in armed conflict. In this paper, I present a reading of two possible resolutions in international law to the question posed by this ‘other’ foreign fighting and explore the tensions between them. The first is based on State responsibility, sovereign equality, and diligent prevention of harm; the second on a more contextual reading of human rights considerations and global justice. The tensions surrounding ‘other’ foreign fighters provide a practical example of the oscillation between a reliance on the consent of States and a notion of the collective good in international legal argument. Acknowledging the practical reliance of States on these interlacing perspectives in different times and contexts, I suggest the importance of stepping back and slowing down to look beyond today’s predominant but narrower and rushed, focus on counter-terrorism approaches to take account of the key themes that have shaped the legal discourse and practice regarding a broader historical range of foreign volunteering in armed conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document