Search results

The literature on global justice contains a number of distinct approaches. This article identifies & reviews recent work in four of these 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, & the realist claim that global justice is utopian & that states should advance national interest. 153 References. Adapted from the source document.

"Global distributive justice is now part of mainstream political debate. It incorporates issues that are now a familiar feature of the political landscape, such as global poverty, trade justice, aid to the developing world and debt cancellation. This is the first textbook to focus exclusively on issues of distributive justice on the global scale. It gives clear and up-to-date accounts of the major theories of global justice and spells out their significance for a series of important political issues, including climate change, international trade, human rights and migration. These issues are brought to life through the use of case studies, which emphasise the connection of theories of justice to contemporary politics, and 'Further Issues' sections, which discuss emerging debates or controversies that are likely to command increasing attention in the coming years."--Provided by publisher

"Global (Distributive) Justice" published on by Oxford University Press.

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.

Liberalism and Distributive Justice discusses liberalism, capitalism, distributive justice, and John Rawls's difference principle. Chapters are organized in a narrative arc: from liberalism as the dominant political and economic system, to the laws governing interpersonal transactions in liberal society, to basic economic and political institutions that determine distributive justice.

The first systematic treatment of the role of institutions in cosmopolitan theories of distributive justice. Defining an institution as a public system of rules that sets out positions, rights and duties, Andras Miklos uses a philosophical argument to analyse the roles that social, economic and political institutions play in conditioning the justification, scope and content of principles of justice. He critically evaluates a number of positions about the role of institutions in generating requirements of distributive justice and considers their implications for the scope - global or otherwise - of justice. He then develops a new theory about the role political and economic institutions play in determining the content of requirements of distributive justice and, in a cosmopolitan argument against statist positions, shows how they can affect the scope of application of these requirements.

"Accounting and Justice" challenges the basic assumptions on which the current practice of financial reporting is based. Looking critically at the philosophical basis of the rules that govern the financial reporting companies throughout the world, Flower uses the stakeholder theory of the firm to show that companies have a responsibility to achieve distributive justice, and the company's accounts could play an important role in fulfilling this responsibility.