Suchergebnisse

The article discusses the normative responses of the tradition of Rawls's political philosophy to the fact that globalization is not working according to the principles of distributive justice and that the existing global distribution of income and wealth is highly unjust. The first section presents the cosmopolitan theories of Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge, both of whom draw their concepts from Rawls's masterpiece "Theory of Justice". These advocates of the Rawlsian approach see our world as forming one basic global structure that entails complex economic, political and cultural relationships across state borders. These relationships have important distributive implications that require the application of Rawlsian principles of justice at the transnational level. In the second part, Rawls's work developed in "The Law of Peoples", which is the extension of his own approach to the transnational domain, is critically examined. Its major notions (Society of Peoples, liberal and decent peoples, outlaw states and burdened societies, etc.), as well as the reasons for rejecting this approach from a cosmopolitan point of view are closely analyzed. In the third part, globalism and statism are conceived of as two main paradigms of current debate on global and international justice. The article concludes with the thesis that Rainer Forst's conception of transnational justice may provide the possible transcendence of this opposition. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a comparison of three approaches to international justice. The first part of the article focuses on the realist paradigm, the second section analyzes various liberal approaches, and the third part presents the basic ideas of neomarxism. The largest part of the article is devoted to a critical discussion of existing liberal approaches -- liberal institutionalism (R. Keohane), political liberalism (J. Rawls), democratic liberalism (J. Habermas), globalist utilitarianism (P. Singer), globalist egalitarianism (Ch. Beitz, T. Pogge), and liberal impartialism (B. Barry). The article concludes by synthesizing the insights of the three broad normative positions into a realist, yet at the same time critical, liberalism. Adapted from the source document.

Contemporary normative debates about justice increasingly revolve around the problem of extending the principles of justice (and corresponding theories) beyond the level of the nation-state, to which they have been for a long time confined. The article below discusses several authors from the wide and heterogenous politico-philosophical current of liberal egalitarianism, which can be considered one of the leading contemporary schools of thought, or the mainstream. There are two interrelated goals in this enterprise: First, to show how varied and cross-cutting the normative landscape of justice is, even within this specific current. Second, since I concentrate on the problem of extending the principles and theories of justice to supra-state levels, the universality (or the "cosmopolitan reach") of these ideas stands out as one of the most interesting features of these discussions. The work of Brian Barry, David Miller, Onora O'Neill and John Rawls exemplify many crucial issues that any theory of justice with cosmopolitan ambitions must cope with. The article concludes that the concept of (universal) human rights seems to be the only value that can buttress any cosmopolitan theories of justice; however, the normative debate over (1) their grounding, scope and corresponding obligations and (2) their connection to a comprehensive account of a good society, i.e. liberal democracy -- and therefore, the acknowledged danger of ethnocentrism -- is still far from being resolved. Adapted from the source document.