Suchergebnisse

The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had left heart-wrenching impacts on all facets of life in general and the availability, accessibility, and affordability of medicines and vaccines in particular. Rather, the world has been divided into two groups regarding access to medicine and vaccines as haves and have-nots. The rich countries had pre-ordered the vaccines of COVID-19 along with the holding of the same. The pandemic situation was further worsened, given the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in practice and restrictions on sharing technology of vaccines, medicines, and life-saving equipment. In this context, India and South Africa have proposed the joint proposal and garnered support for waiving off TRIPS to ensure equity, accessibility, and affordability of vaccines and the same as public goods. In this review, we emphasize that global justice is one of the important elements of normative international theories, which focus on all the moral obligations from the world's rich to the world's poor. The paper also questions and argues that if the rich countries fail to go by the principles of global justice, can the Indian and South African (SA) patent diplomacy play a catalyst role in global justice? The review concludes with an emphasis on global solidarity, and the acceptance of joint India–South Africa's "patent diplomacy" for TRIPS waiver would result in mass production and fair distribution, making the COVID-19 medicines and technologies available to everyone regardless of their poor–rich status.

La interpretación más fuerte y polémica de la tesis del carácter institucional en lugar de moral del concepto de justicia distributiva, que ha recibido la denominación de concepción dependiente de la práctica, considera que las instituciones políticas juegan un papel decisivo no sólo de cara a la implementación de las exigencias de ésta, o a la determinación de los criterios distributivos para cada reparto, sino también a la formulación de los primeros principios. Esta concepción de la justicia ofrece una de las razones más poderosas para desacreditar la que, al menos para la primera generación de cosmopolitas modernos, constituyó el fundamento más habitual para tales deberes: el igualitarismo de la suerte. Este trabajo examina las claves desde las que podría construirse una justicia distributiva global a partir de la corrección o moderación a un doble nivel de la concepción dependiente de la práctica. En primer lugar, apuntando a la necesidad de combinar adecuadamente elementos independientes (racionales, morales o ideales) y dependientes de cara a evitar vaciar a la teoría de la justicia de su componente crítico y, sobre todo y, en segundo lugar, ampliando, con el auxilio de la noción de justicia de trasfondo y de la concepción sistémica de la coacción, el tipo de prácticas que generan demandas morales de la particularidad y exigencia característica de la justicia distributiva. ; The strongest and polemic interpretation of the thesis of the institutional character instead of moral of the concept of distributive justice, which has received the denomination of conception practice dependent, considers that the political institutions play a decisive face role not only to the implementation of the requirements of this one or to the determination of the distributive criteria for every share-out, but also to the formulation of the first principles. This conception of the justice offers one of the most powerful reasons to discredit the one that, at least for the first generation of modern cosmopolitans, constituted the most habitual foundation for such duties: the luck egalitarism. This work examines the keys from the one that a local distributive justice might construct itself from the correction or moderation of the conception dependent on the practice at a double level. First of all, pointing at the need to combine appropriately independent elements (rational, moral or ideal) and dependents in order to avoid to empty to the theory of the justice of its critical component and, especially and secondly, extending, with the help of the notion of background justice and of the systemic conception of the coercion, the type of practices that generate moral demands of the peculiarity and demand typical of the distributive justice. ; Este trabajo se enmarca en el proyecto de investigación de excelencia SEJ-6849, «Inmigración y Justicia Global» financiado por la Consejería de Economía, Innovación y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucía.

The strongest and polemic interpretation of the thesis of the institutional character instead of moral of the concept of distributive justice, which has received the denomination of conception practice dependent, considers that the political institutions play a decisive face role not only to the implementation of the requirements of this one or to the determination of the distributive criteria for every share-out, but also to the formulation of the first principles. This conception of the justice offers one of the most powerful reasons to discredit the one that, at least for the first generation of modern cosmopolitans, constituted the most habitual foundation for such duties: the luck egalitarism. This work examines the keys from the one that a local distributive justice might construct itself from the correction or moderation of the conception dependent on the practice at a double level. First of all, pointing at the need to combine appropriately independent elements (rational, moral or ideal) and dependents in order to avoid to empty to the theory of the justice of its critical component and, especially and secondly, extending, with the help of the notion of background justice and of the systemic conception of the coercion, the type of practices that generate moral demands of the peculiarity and demand typical of the distributive justice. ; La interpretación más fuerte y polémica de la tesis del carácter institucional en lugar de moral del concepto de justicia distributiva, que ha recibido la denominación de concepción dependiente de la práctica, considera que las instituciones políticas juegan un papel decisivo no sólo de cara a la implementación de las exigencias de ésta, o a la determinación de los criterios distributivos para cada reparto, sino también a la formulación de los primeros principios. Esta concepción de la justicia ofrece una de las razones más poderosas para desacreditar la que, al menos para la primera generación de cosmopolitas modernos, constituyó el fundamento más habitual para tales ...

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.

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.

"What, if any, are the demands of global distributive justice? How, if at all, does global distributive justice affect our understanding of social development and the moral justifiability of international development policies? Global Justice and Development answers the first question by arguing that the demands of global distributive justice ought to be determined in a reasonably democratic manner. Accordingly, the primary demand of global distributive justice is to establish the political and socioeconomic conditions necessary for reasonably democratic arrangements. In response to the second question, this book makes the case that such a procedural view of global distributive justice challenges all substantive normative conceptions of social development that focus on particular outcomes rather than on proper political procedures. It also justifies why this procedural view of global distributive justice morally justifies certain democracy-enhancing international development policies as requirements of justice rather than as humanitarian duties of assistance. "--

Charles Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations has had an enormous impact on analyses of the ethical issues raised at the global level. It was the first systematic discussion of such ethical issues in the last 50 years if not more. It remains a landmark for a number of different reasons. First, it stands out for the sophistication of its philosophical argument and the meticulous argumentation throughout. The latter is deployed not simply to provide powerful critiques of other perspectives (such as realism and the morality of states). It also puts forward and defends with considerable ingenuity a cosmopolitan theory of distributive justice. A second striking and impressive feature of the book is that it successfully integrates philosophical argument with a deep grasp of the nature of world politics and the empirical and theoretical literatures on salient aspects of world politics.

"This book presents a critical appraisal of the main theories of distributive justice, that is, theories that seek to specify what is meant by a just distribution of goods among members of society. It does so in a framework in which all liberal theories of justice are seen as expressions of laissez-faire with compensations for factors that they consider to be morally arbitrary. More specifically, these theories are interpreted as specifying that the outcome of individuals acting independently, without the intervention of any central authority, is just, provided that those who fare ill for reasons that the theories deem to be arbitrary, for example, because they have fewer talents than others, receive compensation from those who fare well. The theories considered may be ordered from those which treat the most factors as being arbitrary to those which treat the least. They are Rawls's justice as fairness, Dworkin's equality of resources, what may loosely be called Steiner-Vallentyne common ownership theories, and Nozick's entitlements theory. The book considers the extent, if any, to which the theories discussed can accommodate both liberty and equality. It concludes that any such accommodation is problematic, but that if it is to be found it will be found among the common ownership theories."--

1. John Rawls' A Theory of Justice represented a rare intellectual event. It advanced a fresh, detailed and powerful conception of political economy, and rooted that conception in an elaborately worked out political and moral philosophy. Rawls' two principles of justice, with the celebrated maximin standard of distributive justice, represent the point of departure for any serious discussion of this subject. The details of Rawls' proposal are too well known to require summary. Instead, I shall call attention to the basic premise of his work and to a significant anomaly in it, as setting the stage for my own proposal.