Suchergebnisse

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

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

"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

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.

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION -- Chapter 2 NATIONALIST THEORIES OF JUSTICE -- Chapter 3 THE POLITICAL CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE -- Chapter 4 RAWLSIAN JUSTICE AND THE LAW OF PEOPLES -- Chapter 5 RAWLSIAN JUSTICE GLOBALISED -- Chapter 6 NON-RELATIONAL COSMOPOLITAN THEORIES -- Chapter 7 INSTITUTIONS AND THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE -- CONCLUSION -- BIBLIOGRAPHY -- INDEX

This Element argues that although Kant's political thought does not tackle issues of global poverty and inequality head on, it nonetheless offers important conceptual and normative resources to think of our global socioeconomic duties. It delves into the Kantian duty to enter a rightful condition beyond the state and shows that a proper understanding of this duty not only leads us to acknowledge a duty of right to assist states that are unable to fulfil the core functions of a state, but also provides valuable hints at what just transnational trade relations and a just regulation of immigration should look like.

Many hold that the state has normative significance because its borders define the scope of egalitarian principles of distributive justice. On this view egalitarian principles of distributive justice should be applied within the state but should not be adopted at the global level. This article examines two reasons for accepting this view and for rejecting global egalitarianism, and finds both wanting. It then presents three challenges to any view that holds that the scope of principles of distributive justice should be determined by the boundaries of the state. It concludes by noting four distinct ways in which the state has normative significance, each of which can be endorsed by global egalitarians.

International borders concentrate opportunities in some societies while limiting them in others. Borders also prevent those in the less favored societies from gaining access to opportunities available in the more favored ones. Both distributive effects of borders are treated here within a comprehensive framework. I argue that each state should have broad discretion under international law to grant or deny entry to immigration seekers; but more favored countries that find themselves under immigration pressure should be legally obligated to fund development assistance for countries that generate immigration pressure. Funding should be subject to conditions of fair and effective use in recipient countries, and should aim at a near-term target of immigration-pressure equilibrium. Equilibrium obtains between two countries when, given appropriate background circumstances, the same proportion of individuals in each manifests a preference to migrate to the other. If meeting the equilibrium target in the short term would be to the long-term disadvantage of the worst-off countries, then a Pareto-superior alternative target supersedes. It mandates development assistance at the level that yields the most favorable human development projections for the worstoff countries. An implementable set of institutions is described that can achieve the equilibrium goal in the long term without unduly sacrificing other important ends, including economic growth, political stability, cultural integrity, the political autonomy of distinct societies, and their proper accountability for policy choices.