Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2008, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Contemporary political philosophy has only recently witnessed a widespread emergence of analyses of justice beyond the context of the nation‐state. When modern political philosophers devised principles of justice in the past, they typically took for granted that ...
Boston College Law Review
A Précis of On Global Justice, With Emphasis on Implications for International Institutions2012 •
The two traditional ways of thinking about justice at the global level either limit the applicability of justice to states or else extend it to all human beings. The view I defend rejects both these approaches and instead recognizes different considerations or conditions based on which individuals are in the scope of different principles of justice. Finding a philosophically convincing alternative to those approaches strikes me as the most demanding and important challenge contemporary political philosophy faces (one that in turn reflects the significance of the political issues that are at stake). My own view, and thus my attempt at meeting this challenge, acknowledges the existence of multiple grounds of justice. This book seeks to present a foundational theory that makes it plausible that there could be multiple grounds of justice and to defend a specific view of the grounds that I call pluralist internationalism. Pluralist Internationalism grants particular normative relevance t...
The field of global justice is rife with academic disagreement on a number of fundamental questions - “What does ‘global’ mean in this context?”, “What would justice look like?”, “Who is best placed to achieve it?”, “Is the aim of global justice to set base standards, or as Stanley Hoffman describes, “starting from what is and groping towards the “ought”” (1991)?”. This essay will show that the lack of consensus on global justice is a microcosm of schisms present in international relations (IR) perspectives. This impasse renders a universal conception of global justice untenable and infeasible. More cogently, if one cannot construct a hypothetical, coherent solution to global justice, how will it be implemented?
Debates on global justice are flourishing. In this review article I examine three recent contributions to this debate, which, even though they differ from each other in their overall approach and normative conclusion, exemplify what might be called the third wave of global justice theorizing. Aaron James’s Fairness in Practice, Mathias Risse’s On Global Justice, and Laura Valentini’s Justice in a Globalized World belong to the third wave of theories of global justice in virtue of a combination of features: They disentangle conceptual and normative disagreements that underpinned debates between cosmopolitans and non-cosmopolitans, or statists and globalists; drawing on their refined conceptual toolkit, they develop both substantive and methodological alternatives to familiar positions; and they take these alternatives as a vantage point for thinking about what justice would require of particular aspects of the international order, sometimes in very practical terms. My discussion of the third wave proceeds in four steps. First, I shall present the key arguments and most important ideas of each book. I introduce Valentini’s coercion framework for thinking about questions of global justice, explain how James thinks of structural equity as a requirement of fairness in international trade, and present Risse’s approach of pluralist internationalism and its focus on common ownership of the earth. Second, I shall explain how each contribution exhibits at least some of the features characteristic of the third wave. On the one hand, this section explains why in spite of their differences a common label is appropriate for James, Risse and Valentini. On the other hand, it offers an account of the virtues and strengths of each approach. Third, I present what I believe is a systematic challenge to the third wave of global justice: Each way of covering the middle ground between statism and globalism comes with a particular difficulty, giving rise to what one may call a third wave dilemma. Finally, I conclude by sketching how the third wave is likely to transform the research agenda of international political theorists. Even those developing alternatives to the third wave will have to be measured by the standards it sets.
Metaphilosophy
The Global Scope of Justice2001 •
In this paper, I examine the question of the scope of justice, in a not unusual distributive, egalitarian, and universalistic framework. Part I outlines some central features of the egalitarian theory of justice I am proposing. According to such a conception, justice is – at least prima facie – immediately universal, and therefore global. It does not morally recognize any judicial boundaries or limits. Part II examines whether, even from a universalistic perspective, there are moral or pragmatic grounds for rejecting or limiting the global scope of justice. In particular, I scrutinize five universalistic objections: (1) the principle of “moral division of labor”; (2) the connection between cooperation and distributive justice; (3) the primacy of democracy; (4) the dangers of a world state; and (5) political-pragmatic reasons. I intend to show that these objections cannot undermine the strong normative claims of global justice. At the most, political-pragmatic reasons speak in favor of initially striving for somewhat less, in order to receive more general backing.
California Western international law journal
Where Has Theory Gone? Some Questions About Global Justice2012 •
Global Justice - An Alternat
Global Justice - An Alternative ApproachIn this paper, the theories of global justice designed by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas are analyzed and then included to design a new approach based on the idea of justice through the absence of injustice.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Authored Book - LUISS Univ. Press
Maffettone A REALISTIC UTOPIA GLOBAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION1996 •
International affairs
International political theory and the question of justice2006 •
Global Rectificatory Justice
The Discussion on Global Justice: A Missing PremiseJournal of Global Ethics
Introduction to 'Critical Perspectives on Global Justice', J of Global Ethics special issue (2013)2013 •
New Waves in Global Justice
How Global Is Global Justice? Towards a Global Philosophy2014 •
Global Society
Developing a Situationist Global Justice Theory: from an architectonic to a consummatory approach2019 •
in: Lukas Meyer (ed.), Legitimacy, Justice and Public International Law, Cambrdige University Press 2009, pp. 207-231.
Global Justice: Problems of a Cosmopolitan AccountPolitical Studies
Distributive Justice and the Criticism of International Law1981 •
Journal of Catholic Social Thought
Global justice: an anti-collectivist and pro-causal ethic2012 •
The European Legacy
World Justice, Global Politics and Nation States: Three Ethico-Political Problems2002 •
2004 •
Australian journal of human rights
What is this thing called global justice?2018 •