Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions (Studies in Global Justice)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
1 2 Andreas Follesdal and Thomas Pogge 1 The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the Faculty of Law and ARENA Centre for 2 European Studies, University of Oslo; Philosophy, Columbia University, New York, and Oslo University; Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Australian National University, Canberra This volume discusses principles of global justice, their normative grounds, and the social institutions they require. Over the last few decades an increasing number of philosophers and political theorists have attended to these morally urgent, politically confounding and philosophically challenging topics. Many of these scholars came together September 11–13, 2003, for an international symposium where first versions of most of the present chapters were discussed. A few additional chapters were solicited to provide a broad and critical range of perspectives on these issues. The Oslo Symposium took Thomas Pogge’s recent work in this area as its starting point, in recognition of his long-standing academic contributions to this topic and of the seminars on moral and political philosophy he has taught since 1991 under the auspices of the Norwegian Research Council. Pogge’s opening remarks ― “What is Global Justice?” ― follow below, before brief synopses of the various contributions.
Still, I focus here on justifications of the limitation of claim-rights to co-nationals. This text was initially written in French. In this language the expression “la préférence nationale” is highly polemical since it is a slogan much used by Jean-Marie Le Pen and his Front National. It should be noted that the term “moral right” is not used here, as it is quite commonly used, in a weak sense to indicate (moral) rights that do not demand any legal enforcement. According to my definition, people
Both types of contribution-based reasons figure prominently in global policy debates. Joseph Stiglitz’s arguments to the effect that the IMF and the US Treasury contributed to the East Asian financial crisis, for example, are intended not only to convey the responsibilities of these collective agents to mitigate the deprivations that the crisis has engendered, but also to present these agents with reasons to change their policies, since their present and future conduct will otherwise be likely to
placed with smaller social institutions or entities rather than with larger ones — thus reducing the need for global transfers and other distributive arrangements. Gosepath argues that while subsidiarity is an essential and often neglected principle of justice, it does not deserve as prominent a status as Catholic social teaching and the European Union treaties would have us believe. The Principle of Subsidiarity is subordinate to more general principles of justice, such as those of distributive
them, or with scientific knowledge and the way scientists and intellectuals manage it. Political power is founded upon the use of physical force (weapons, armies, police, etc.): it is a constraining power in the very physical sense. Bobbio assumes that political power is the supreme one, since it is the ultimate instrument to coerce and to force people to adopt certain behaviors. These forms of power establish and maintain a society in which inequality reigns, that is, a society divided “into
overthrow the economic system and therefore did not free itself completely from the interests of the economically stronger groups: even the most advanced welfare state recognizes and defends the private ownership of the means of production and considers capitalism (maybe in a more politically controlled form) as the only possible economic system. In other words, disadvantaged people or classes have tried to improve their situation by using the very same instruments created by the dominating