On his blog, Chris M takes up the point made in the lecture about whether or how Rawls' principles of justice function in a world of globalisation.
This issue has provoked some interesting discussion. The leading theorist here is Charles Beitz. In his work "Political Theory and International Relations," Beitz argues for extending Rawls principles of justice to order relations between nation states.
He suggests that if societies are to be understood as interdependent, cooperative entities that interact in meaningful (and potentially mutually advantageous) ways, then surely Rawls’ domestic principles of justice should apply to the relations between – and not merely within – them.
Rawls himself addresses the issue of global justice in a work called "The Law of Peoples" but he comes up with different principles to those he thinks apply to domestic situations within states. In particular, he rules out redistribution of wealth between nations to promote equality, or improve the situation of the "least advantaged" in this realm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It seems that in overall Rawls's theory is not applicable to global situations. Although he mentions the principles of his theory in terms of international justice (ToJ,p 378-79), it is really difficult to find a room for his second principle. In my understanding, the first one might be ok, however the second principle due to the lack of universal state looks controvertial. Beitz's argument might solve part of the problem but other issues remain problematic. Rawl's theory, to me, is interesting because of his fusion of continental philosophy and Anglo-American ones in some senses. But, his effort to cover too many areas like the int'l issue and even his consideration of the idea of justice between generations (ToJ,p 289-90), leads me to just consider his theory in domestic sense.
Post a Comment