Search results

Climate philosophers conceptualize 'grandfathering' as 'emissions grandfathering': past emission levels entitle to future emissions. With the notable but controversial exception of libertarian Luc Bovens (2011), they regard grandfathering as intrinsically, even if not instrumentally, unjust. Questioning both the standard dismissal and Bovens's Lockean pro-argument, this article defends the intrinsic (albeit limited) fairness of grandfathering conceptualized as 'resources grandfathering': fossil resource creation entitles to future resources use. A threefold 'social constructivist' ethical argument for this position is developed. First, philosophers' basic aversion to grandfathering, while consistent with their emissions-based understanding, rests on an undefended, shallow 'cosmopolitan materialism'. Second, Bovens's Lockean defense of the intrinsic fairness of grandfathering emission rights falls short for assuming a dubious 'first-come first-served' within a retained cosmopolitan materialism, although it sensibly suggests to include respect for investments in our understanding of grandfathering. Third, a 'communitarian idealist' defense of grandfathering, which stresses that 'natural resources' are cultural-historical creations, succeeds by undermining cosmopolitan materialism and eliminating first-come first-served. Thus, grandfathering supports Western countries and opposes (possibly) non-Western small rich or rapidly industrializing ones, and implies a critique of the view that the West owes a massive climate debt to developing countries. Yet, grandfathering, as distributional starting-point within a pluralist framework, should arguably be complemented by 'no-harm' and 'ability to pay'.

The late influential American intellectual Michael Novak was a self-declared devotee of Reinhold Niebuhr, arguably the foremost twentieth-century American theologian. Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982) was an attempt to fill the political-economic lacuna in Niebuhr's thought. The present article offers a Niebuhrian irony–focused response to Novak's democratic capitalism in view of climate change as probably the greatest threat facing humanity. Novak quite successfully extended Niebuhrian ideas into a theology-based vision of democratic capitalism as the only political-economic system effective in widely lifting people out of poverty. Yet he failed to acknowledge human-induced climate change as beyond reasonable doubt and rooted in the predominantly American invention of a fossil energy–based capitalist political economy. This article's thesis is that Novak's democratic capitalism entails Niebuhrian irony: the virtue it displays about resources becomes a vice due to Novak's irresponsible post– Spirit of Democratic Capitalism attempt to represent democratic capitalism as innocent of any dangerous climate-change implications.

'Conventional' models of how the field of international political economy should engage with ethics have proposed or assumed the normative primacy of ethical principles and often sought to add reliable empirical economic analysis so that political perspectives on economic systems, institutions and practices can result. James Brassett and Christopher Holmes (2010) have criticized such approaches for overlooking the potentially violent character of ethics as a constitu- tive discourse like any other. The present article defends the conventional method against Brassett and Holmes's critique. Focusing especially on Thomas Pogge's ethics of world poverty as Brassett and Holmes's main conventionalist target, the article argues that: (i) Brassett and Holme s's understanding of 'ethics' is seriously inadequate; (ii) Pogge's 'negative duty not to harm' principle should be maintained against Brassett and Holmes's troublingly 'political' account and facile relativist critique of Pogge's ethics; (iii) Brassett and Holmes, while conceivably critical of Pogge's global level reformist solution as superficially 'neo liberal', cannot see that their own arguably valuable proposal of radical local forms of 'resistance' can coherently complete Pogge's poverty ethics and thus confirms, rather than undermines, the conventional method. Ultimately, Brassett and Holmes's post structural attempt risks being 'violent' itself for implying a renewed international moral skepticism.

'Conventional' models of how the field of international political economy should engage with ethics have proposed or assumed the normative primacy of ethical principles and often sought to add reliable empirical-economic analysis so that political perspectives on economic systems, institutions, and practices can result. James Brassett and Christopher Holmes (2010) have criticized such approaches for overlooking the potentially 'violent' character of ethics as 'a constitutive discourse like any other'. The present article defends the conventional method against Brassett and Holmes's critique. Focusing especially on Thomas Pogge's ethics of world poverty as Brassett and Holmes's main conventionalist target, the article argues that: (i) Brassett and Holmes's understanding of 'ethics' is seriously inadequate; (ii) Pogge's 'negative duty not to harm' principle should be maintained against Brassett and Holmes's troublingly 'political' account and facile 'relativist' critique of Pogge's ethics; (iii) Brassett and Holmes, while conceivably critical of Pogge's global-level reformist solution as superficially 'neo-liberal', cannot see that their own, arguably valuable proposal of radical local forms of 'resistance' can coherently complete Pogge's poverty ethics and thus confirms, rather than undermines, the conventional method. Ultimately, Brassett and Holmes's post-structural attempt risks being 'violent' itself for implying a renewed international moral skepticism.

Philosophers interested in John Rawls's international political theorizing have paid considerable attention to the duty of assistance as a key notion of his Law of Peoples. However, in focusing on contentious-theoretical and practical implications of this duty, they have not thoroughly examined the more immediate question of whether this duty is sustainable from the perspective of Rawls's Law of Peoples itself. The thesis of the present article is that Rawls's duty of assistance is internally unsustainable, as it cannot be adequately justified from within his Law of Peoples. A threefold argument is developed. First, Rawls's own explanation of the duty of assistance within the Law of Peoples is unclear and confusing. Second, others' 'Rawlsian' ideal-theoretical and non-ideal-theoretical attempts to justify the duty of assistance probably inevitably fail. Third, Rawls's Law of Peoples leads to skepticism about the duty of assistance's applicability to the non-ideal world. The article concludes that at most a principle of corrective justice in ideal theory combined with a right of assistance and an ad hoc duty of corrective justice in non-ideal theory is maintainable within the Law of Peoples.

Philosophers interested in John Rawls's international political theorizing have paid considerable attention to the duty of assistance as a key notion of his Law of Peoples. However, in focusing on contentious-theoretical and practical implications of this duty, they have not thoroughly examined the more immediate question of whether this duty is sustainable from the perspective of Rawls's Law of Peoples itself. The thesis of the present article is that Rawls's duty of assistance is internally unsustainable, as it cannot be adequately justified from within his Law of Peoples. A threefold argument is developed. First, Rawls's own explanation of the duty of assistance within the Law of Peoples is unclear and confusing. Second, others' 'Rawlsian' ideal-theoretical and non-ideal-theoretical attemptsto justify the duty of assistance probably inevitably fail. Third, Rawls's Law of Peoples leads to skepticism about the duty of assistance's applicability to the non-ideal world. The article concludes that at most a principle of corrective justice in ideal theory combined with a right of assistance and an ad hoc duty of corrective justice in non-ideal theory is maintainable within the Law of Peoples.

While the European Union (EU) is not beyond dispute, political theorists have ignored or unsatisfactorily dealt with the question of whether a moral justification exists for the EU. The present article aims to address this lacuna by proposing a moral-political standard for EU assessment rooted in the virtue-ethical tradition of 'normative prudence'. The article's thesis is that the relatively demanding, more other-regarding 'higher prudence' is the virtue the EU as a supranational organization should come to embody in order to qualify as morally justified. A fourfold argument is developed. First, the moral-political tradition of normative prudence is highly relevant to international and European politics. Second, the realistic, more self-regarding 'lower prudence' applies to the state sovereignties the supranational EU has characteristically aimed to transcend and therefore could not suffice as its virtue. Third, to meet the as yet unmet requirements of 'higher prudence', the EU should assume positive and negative moral obligations for giving extra weight to other-regarding considerations in its policies, since (i) as 'security consumer' and 'welfare creator' it possesses the added economic capacity to do this and (ii) as a 'regionalist' project it is in basic and historical tension with global justice. Fourth, for the EU to transform itself into a sovereign, 'lower prudent' European 'state' would tragically imply the moral failure of the European integration project. Keywords: European Union; global justice; justification; normative prudence; supranationalism

Widespread agreement exists among international political theorists that realist skepticism - a once-dominant philosophical doctrine that disputes the relevance of moral principles for international conduct - has been discredited. Charles Beitz (1999[1979]) and, in his wake, Marshall Cohen (1984) have been praised for having proven realist skepticism wrong and thereby having paved the way for the emergence and philosophical supremacy of normative international political theory. The present article argues that realist skepticism has not been successfully refuted, but is still a viable position. The argument is twofold. First, realist skepticism should be understood as a position that rejects the idea that international relations is a domain suitable for 'ethical discourse' (Gustafson 1988), that is, philosophically precise, technical ethical reasoning. Second, the above-mentioned attempt to refute realist skepticism fails for question-beggingly assuming the appropriateness of 'ethical discourse' and thereby for insufficiently addressing realism's key political objections. The upshot is that normative, ethical international political theory, its popularity notwithstanding, rests on an insecure foundation. Keywords: international ethics; international political theory; international skepticism; political realism

Renowned political philosopher John Rawls once expressed skepticism about the moral status of the European Union (EU). Yet generally EU scholars have either ignored Rawls or rather uncritically established positive links between his theory of domestic and international justice and the EU. This article argues that the EU cannot be morally justified from a Rawlsian perspective. Thus, Rawls's Euro-skepticism is not just a personal opinion, but is embedded in his political philosophy. The argument basically entails that the EU cannot plausibly be understood in terms of a Rawlsian (i) domestic society or (ii) society of peoples. It is also argued that Rawls's seemingly favorable yet rare mentioning of the 'European Community' means no theoretical support for the EU. Moreover, counter-arguments that the EU can be seen as in line with Rawls's notion of a realistic utopia are shown to be false. In consequence, serious adherents of Rawls's political philosophy cannot be committed EU defenders. Keywords: European integration, European Union, John Rawls, Law of Peoples, political liberalism, theory of justice

Prominent IR scholar Kenneth Waltz has acknowledged Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a major influence. Yet Waltz's neorealist theory of international politics claims to be strictly 'third image' with no room for 'first image' considerations, such as Niebuhr's emphasis on the explanatory role of 'sinful' human nature. This article claims that the significance of Niebuhr's Christian realism for Waltz's neorealism has been profound, much more so than Waltz and IR scholars generally have recognized. Three arguments are developed. First, Waltz's own early attempt to transcend Niebuhrian realism falls short. Second, Waltz's anarchic balance-of-power theory is basically Niebuhrian. Third, Waltz's assumptions about states as egoistic security-seekers can be properly comprehended from Niebuhr's realist theology. As invoking Niebuhr leads to a deeper understanding of Waltz's theory, Niebuhr may be considered the 'father' of modern realism, structural as well as classical ; Prominent IR scholar Kenneth Waltz has acknowledged Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a major influence. Yet Waltz's neorealist theory of international politics claims to be strictly 'third image' with no room for 'first image' considerations, such as Niebuhr's emphasis on the explanatory role of 'sinful' human nature. This article claims that the significance of Niebuhr's Christian realism for Waltz's neorealism has been profound, much more so than Waltz and IR scholars generally have recognized. Three arguments are developed. First, Waltz's own early attempt to transcend Niebuhrian realism falls short. Second, Waltz's anarchic balance-of-power theory is basically Niebuhrian. Third, Waltz's assumptions about states as egoistic security-seekers can be properly comprehended from Niebuhr's realist theology. As invoking Niebuhr leads to a deeper understanding of Waltz's theory, Niebuhr may be considered the 'father' of modern realism, structural as well as classical. Keywords: Kenneth Waltz, Reinhold Niebuhr, neorealism, Christian realism, IR