A Synthetic Approach to the Grounds of Global Justice

• Authors: Abumere Frank Aragbonfoh
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper argues that neither the relational approach nor the non-relational approach to global justice is at once necessary and sufficient to deal with complex cases of global (in)justice. In this intervention in the dispute between relational and non-relational approaches, the aim of the paper is not to support one side and oppose the other, but to combine both approaches in order to arrive at a more robust approach. Using the strengths of the relational approach to compensate for the weaknesses of the non-relational approach and vice versa, the aim of the paper is to set out a mixed, combinatorial or synthetic approach that will be used to address complex cases of global (in)justice. Rather thandiscussing how the synthetic approach applies to a particular complex case of global (in)justice, the paper shows how a synthetic approach that intends to address complex cases of global (in)justice will look like. Perhaps, colloquially in Hegelian dialectics, the relational approach can be seen as a thesis, the non-relational approach as an antithesis and the combination of both approaches as a synthesis.

Keywords

EN

cosmopolitanism; distributive justice; global justice; non-relational approach; relational approach; statism

• Publisher: Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. Marii Grzegorzewskiej. Wydawnictwo APS
• Journal: Studies in Global Ethics and Global Education
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 8
• Pages: 34-53

Dates

published

2018-04-30

Contributors

author

Abumere Frank Aragbonfoh

• Departament of Philosophy, University of Tromso, Hansine Hansens veg 18, 9019 Tromso, Norway

References

• Abumere, F. A. (2015).Different Perspectives on Global Justice: A Fusion of Horizons,Bielefeld: Publication at Bielefeld University (PUB).
• Beitz, Charles R. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Beitz, Charles R. (1999). Political Theory and International Relations, rev. ed., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Armstrong, C. (2009). Global Egalitarianism.Philosophy Compass, 4, 155 - 171.
• Armstrong, C. (2012). Global Distributive Justice,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bull, H. (2002). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics,3 rd ed., London: Palgrave.
• Caney, S. (2011). Humanity, Associations and Global Justice: In Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism.The Monist, 94, 4, 505 – 534.
• Dietzel, A. (n.d.). Relational vs. Non-Relational Climate Justice – The Case for a Mixed Approach.Retrieved from:https://www.academia.edu/7514329/Relational_vs._Non_Relational_Climate_Justice_-_The_Case_for_a_Mixed_Approach(12.07.2017).
• Kime, M. (2009). Theories of Justice: Relational and Non-Relational Approaches.Retrieved from: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/14531/1/521864.pdf(12.07.2017).
• Maffettone, S. (2013). Normative Approaches to Global Justice. In: M. Telo (ed.),Globalisation, Multilateralism, Europe: Towards a Better Global Governance? (pp. 125 – 143). Surrey: Ashgate.
• McAdams, R. H. (1997). The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms. Michigan Law Review, 96, 338– 433.
• Miller, D. (2013).Justice for Earthlings,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice.Philosophy and Public Affairs, 33, 2, 113–147.
• Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics, 103, 1, 48 - 75.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples: With The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Risse, M. (2012).On Global Justice,Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Risse, M.(2017). Responsibility and Global Justice.Ratio Juris: An International Journal of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, 30, 1, 41 – 58.
• Sangiovanni, A. (2007). Global Justice, Reciprocity and the State.Philosophy and Public Affairs, 35, 1,3 – 39.
• Sangiovanni, A. (2008). Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16, 2, 137 – 164.
• Shapiro, S. (2013). Classical Logic.Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Retrieved from:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/ (22.04.2014).
• Shavell, S. (2002). Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct. American Law and Economics Review, 4, 2, 227 – 257.
• Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Social Norms and Social Roles. Programme in Law and Economics Working Paper, 36, 1 – 50.
• Tan, K. (2004). Justice without Borders,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Notes

DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0012.0386 URL: https://sgege.aps.edu.pl/resources/html/article/details?id=173126