Introduction: Global Justice Radical Perspectives.pdf (original) (raw)
AI-generated Abstract
The special issue critically examines the liberal framework of global justice, arguing that it often overlooks crucial underlying issues such as power dynamics, identity, and recognition. The contributions explore diverse radical perspectives on global injustice, including historical injustices, gendered exploitation, and the governance of common global resources. By addressing these overlooked concerns, the issue seeks to revitalize the normative study of global (in)justice and encourage dialogue between mainstream and radical theories.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Global inequality and injustice
Journal of International Development, 2009
In this paper I shall argue that much of the existing global inequality is unjust, and that this injustice is not only because reducing inequality could serve the important goal of poverty reduction. I reject arguments of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel that limit the importance of distributive egalitarianism to states. I argue in contrast that a commitment to respect for human dignity has egalitarian distributive implications for the global economy. Injustice in the existing institutional order provides reasons for reforming the global institutional structure to reduce inequality.
One particularly unsettling complication in the theory of social inequality is the advent of globalization. Majority of theorists seem to have chosen simply to ignore it and carry on developing accounts of inequality within the Keynesian-Westphalian frame. This text examines the take on the theory of social inequality and social justice of two authors exceptional in this matter – Ulrich Beck and Nancy Fraser. This text presents a basic account of their theories and examines their mutual consistency. It is argued that if combined these authors may assemble a powerful basis for a truly cosmopolitan account of social inequality and justice.
Rising powers like Brazil have recently been gaining considerable economic and political power. This has led to the emergence of a nascent multipolarity in global affairs. Theorists of global distributive justice, however, continue to focus almost exclusively on the responsibility of the established powers for combating global poverty and neglect whether there is a similar responsibility of rising powers. That focus neglects that great shifts have occurred in the distribution of the poor over the past three decades. According to recent work by Andy Sumner almost 75% of the global poor now residing in middle-income countries. This article explores this lacuna and shows that there are several grounds for attributing a similar responsibility to rising power that are familiar from discussions of the established powers' responsibility for global distributive injustice in writings of John Rawls Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge. They are responsibilities that arise from the capacity to stop, the contribution to, and the benefits from global distributive injustices.
Global Economic Justice: A Structural Approach 1
2012
This paper aims to make a contribution to the debate concerning the moral obligations which follow from the facts of the pervasiveness of acute poverty and the extent of global wealth and income inequality. I suggest that in order to make progress in this debate we need to move beyond two dominant ways of thinking about when the demands of distributive justice apply. The first approach focuses solely on the global distribution of resources, regardless of background social relations and institutions. This approach, exemplified by Simon Caney, identifies positive ‘humanity based’ obligations to promote or support institutions that fulfil the socio-economic rights of other humans. The second approach concentrates on the justice of the coercively enforced institutional arrangements governing access to resources. This approach, shared by theorists like Thomas Pogge, focuses on negative obligations not to harm other humans by imposing upon them resource regimes which avoidably fail to sec...
Global Economic Justice: A Structural Approach
This paper aims to make a contribution to the debate concerning the moral obligations which follow from the facts of the pervasiveness of acute poverty and the extent of global wealth and income inequality. I suggest that in order to make progress in this debate we need to move beyond two dominant ways of thinking about when the demands of distributive justice apply. The first approach focuses solely on the global distribution of resources, regardless of background social relations and institutions. This approach, exemplified by Simon Caney, identifies positive 'humanity based' obligations to promote or support institutions that fulfil the socio-economic rights of other humans. The second approach concentrates on the justice of the coercively enforced institutional arrangements governing access to resources. This approach, shared by theorists like Thomas Pogge, focuses on negative obligations not to harm other humans by imposing upon them resource regimes which avoidably fail to secure socio-economic human rights. I use Iris Young's concept of structural injustice to suggest that vulnerability to deprivation can be understood as a social structural position which results from the cumulative effect of a variety of global and national actions, norms and institutions. I draw on the concepts of social responsibility and civic duty to outline an account of social obligation. This obligation requires that individuals critically assess their social structures for any systematic injustice, and make efforts to work with others to establish and maintain legitimate means for avoiding or mitigating any structural injustice. I use this analysis to suggest that individuals who contribute to global social structures must make efforts to work with others who are similarly connected to global poverty towards preventing the continuation of extreme poverty and growing inequality.
Political Equality and Global Poverty: An Alternative Egalitarian Approach to Distributive Justice
I argue that existing views in the political equality debate are inadequate. I propose an alternative approach to equality and argue its superiority to the competing approaches. I apply the approach to some issues in global justice relating to global poverty and to the inability of some countries to develop as they would like. In this connection I discuss institutions of international trade, sovereign debt and global reserves and I focus particularly on the WTO, IMF and World Bank.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.