Global Justice

Global justice is a theory situated within the broader school of cosmopolitan thought, which prioritises the moral value of the individual above that of the state, community, or culture. Central to cosmopolitanism is the belief that all human beings possess equal moral worth and, therefore, are entitled to equal moral consideration. Despite differing views among cosmopolitans regarding how to ensure individuals receive this equal consideration, the individual remains the foundational concern. This emphasis on the individual has led to a critical re-evaluation of traditional theories of justice, which are typically state-centric and situated within political rather than international theory. From this re-evaluation emerges the theory of global justice, a framework that seeks to determine how to ensure a just life for all individuals across the globe, irrespective of nationality or legal status. At its core, justice concerns itself with the distribution of benefits and burdens determining who deserves what, and why. Global justice scholars remain loyal to their cosmopolitan foundations by focusing on individual moral worth, rather than on state affiliation. They analyse issues of global cohabitation where justice has either been unevenly applied or where individuals have not been treated as moral equals. The focus, then, is on the fair allocation of rights, responsibilities, and resources at a global level.

John Rawls and the Limits of Domestic Justice

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice (1971) provides a foundational account of distributive justice, arguing that political institutions, particularly democratic states should be structured to ensure a fair distribution of rights and duties. While Rawls acknowledges inequality, he contends that such inequality is acceptable only if it benefits the least advantaged members of society. However, Rawls restricts his analysis to domestic societies, explicitly excluding international justice, due to the lack of global institutions analogous to the state.

Influence of Rawls and the Expansion of Justice Beyond Borders

Although John Rawls, a seminal figure in liberal political philosophy, was himself reluctant to extend his domestic theory of justice to the international realm, many global justice scholars have drawn on his ideas. Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness originally designed for a well-ordered democratic society has been adapted and expanded to the global context. These scholars argue that globalization has produced basic social structures that mirror those Rawls identified within a single state, including economic interdependence, supranational institutions, and global regulatory frameworks. Under these conditions of globalization, it becomes increasingly difficult to confine justice within national borders. The interactions among states, multinational corporations, international financial institutions, and transnational populations have created a global relational web, within which the distribution of resources and opportunities must be scrutinized through a moral lens.

Cosmopolitan scholars challenge Rawls’ state-centric limitations. Charles Beitz (1975) argues that limiting justice to the national level is inappropriate in a globally interconnected world. He highlights the emergence of international institutions capable of performing basic state functions, such as law-making and resource distribution. Thomas Pogge (1989) builds on this, arguing that global inequalities demand a theory of justice that transcends borders. These thinkers laid the intellectual groundwork for the theory of global justice as a significant contribution to IR.

Global Justice in Practice: Key Issues and Scholars

Global justice scholars have applied their ideas to a wide range of international issues. Thomas Pogge and Gillian Brock focus on poverty alleviation through redistributive measures between rich and poor individuals globally. Mary Kaldor and Daniele Archibugi emphasise humanitarian intervention and the moral priority of individuals over the principle of state non-intervention. Garrett Brown highlights the impact of global structures on health outcomes, calling for institutional reform. These diverse concerns show that global justice theory intersects with many core issues in IR, such as gender inequality, migration, warfare, and climate change. The theory’s relevance stems from its focus on real-world global problems and the moral imperative to address them.

Pluralism Within Global Justice

While united by a focus on individual moral worth, global justice scholars pursue different goals. Some prioritise human rights; others focus on institutional fairness (procedural justice), capabilities, or equitable social processes. This diversity reflects a dynamic and evolving field, especially evident in areas like climate justice, where scholars propose varied and sometimes competing strategies.

Critiques of Global Justice Theory

Despite its moral appeal, global justice faces substantial criticism. David Miller (2007) argues that shared culture and history are necessary for defining justice, and that national borders remain essential. Thomas Nagel (2005) and Michael Blake (2001) claim that global justice is unachievable without powerful institutions to enforce it, institutions that currently do not exist. Iris Marion Young (2011) critiques global justice as Western-centric, questioning the universal applicability of liberal norms such as human rights. These critiques do not negate the importance of global justice but instead fuel ongoing theoretical development.

Climate Change: A New Frontier for Global Justice

Climate change presents one of the clearest cases for the application of global justice. Greenhouse gas emissions are not confined by national borders; their consequences are global. The transboundary nature of climate change challenges traditional notions of sovereignty and makes it a compelling subject for global justice analysis. Addressing climate change requires a coordinated global response. No single nation can combat the issue alone, necessitating global agreements on emissions reductions, financial contributions, and adaptation strategies. These are inherently questions of distributive justice, directly engaging the global justice framework.

Climate change exposes deep inequalities. Those most vulnerable-typically in less developed countries-are often the least responsible for emissions but bear the brunt of climate impacts. With limited resources for adaptation, these populations face significant hardship. Paul Harris (2010) states that climate change “cries out for justice” due to its disproportionate effects on the poor and powerless.

Competing Conceptions of Rights in Climate Justice

Scholars offer varied perspectives on the rights endangered by climate change, highlighting different dimensions of how climate impacts human well-being and governance. Simon Caney (2010) focuses on existing fundamental rights that are threatened, such as the rights to life, food, and health, emphasizing that any effective climate policy must prioritize the protection of these essential rights. Tim Hayward (2007) proposes the recognition of a new right, termed "ecological space," which is the right to live in a healthy and pollution-free environment, underscoring the need to preserve natural conditions conducive to human life. Patrick Hayden (2010) takes a broader approach by including both substantive rights- such as protection from environmental harm-and procedural rights, which encompass participation in environmental policymaking, access to information, and the ability to seek redress for environmental injustices. These frameworks collectively guide ongoing discussions about what measures should be taken to address climate change and who bears the responsibility for action, providing a comprehensive lens to evaluate climate policies through the prism of human rights.

Responsibility for Climate Action: Who Should Pay?

Within the traditional state-centric framework of International Relations (IR), scholars have proposed various models to assign responsibility for global challenges such as climate change. Henry Shue (2014) articulates two foundational principles: the Polluter Pays Principle, which holds that those who cause environmental harm should bear the cost of remediation, and the Ability to Pay Principle, which asserts that countries with greater resources should contribute more to addressing the problem. Challenging these ideas, Thomas Risse (2008) argues for a fairer system of accountability by grouping countries based on per capita wealth and emissions, thus refining how responsibility is distributed among states. Beyond the state-centric lens, cosmopolitanism extends moral responsibility to individuals and non-state actors. Paul Harris (2010) highlights wealthy individuals, rather than states per se, as the principal emitters responsible for excessive carbon footprints. He advocates for affluent persons to reduce their consumption patterns by traveling less, eating less meat, and curbing luxury expenditures. Expanding this perspective, Simon Caney (2010) includes a broad range of agents-corporations, international institutions, sub-national governments, and individuals-who both contribute to emissions and possess the capacity for remedial action. This expanded notion fundamentally challenges traditional IR theory by incorporating a more inclusive set of actors into ethical and policy discussions, pushing the discipline toward more realistic models of global responsibility.

Ongoing debates within global justice theory further deepen and complicate these discussions. One core contention is the role of cultural and national identity in generating the solidarity necessary for distributive justice; critics contend that without shared culture or history, the motivational basis for justice obligations can be weak. Another debate concerns the demandingness of moral duties, questioning how much individuals or states must sacrifice to meet their global obligations and exploring the ethical and practical limits of responsibility. Additionally, there is debate over the range of goods that justice should address- whether it should focus solely on material redistribution such as wealth and resources or also encompass recognition, political representation, access to environmental goods, education, and health. These theoretical debates have concrete implications, influencing how global institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and international treaties define and execute policies in areas including trade, development, humanitarian aid, and environmental protection.

PSIR Ecosystem

UPSC

NET JRF

CUET PG

UGC NET Paper 1

NCERT

Global Justice