Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  global justice
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Human Affairs
|
2010
|
vol. 20
|
issue 2
135-150
EN
The paper deals with the relation of a theory of international justice, specifically John Rawls's philosophy of the law of peoples, and a theory of global justice. In the first part, the paper outlines Rawls's main theses on the international conception of the law of peoples. The second part concerns a problem found in segments of Rawls's theory, specifically his concept of a social contract-contractualism. This problem inadequately approaches the relationship between the individual and the community. The third part deals with the inconsistent points in Rawls's theory contained in part two, i.e. his principles of justice selected with the aid of social contract. In the fourth part, the paper concentrates on the consequences of these limitations for a socially distributive dimension of justice or as an approach for dealing with disproportionate global inequalities. The last part formulates the causes of the limitations of Rawls's theory of international justice and points out the need for a global justice which is socially and inter-culturally considerate.
EN
The communication and internet revolution has had a great influence on time and space contraction, and virtual space has become a platform for intellectual encounters beyond borders. Nowadays, in the time of the knowledge-based society and new communication technologies, the opening of formerly closed borders between “us” and the “others,” and, in consequence, the possibility of creating cosmopolitan identities in virtual space seem to be important problems. Ethical cosmopolitanism should become a determining condition for creation of such identities due to its claim that all people in the world should be treated as equals, regardless of their race,gender, set of beliefs, religion, or the place of their dwelling.The aim of the paper is to present the recent discussion on cosmopolitan identity in the era of the knowledge society, as well as to introduce the concept of strangeness and depict the sociological background and the current evolution of creating the collective identities. The main scope of the article is the discussion of conditions for creating the cosmopolitan identity in the internet space.
EN
This article analyzes the United States policy towards the International Criminal Court while focusing on the selected legal issues. The author starts with an introduction to the history of international criminal prosecutions, in particular — the creation of the International Criminal Court. It discusses alleged inconsistencies of the Rome Statute with international law, legal effects of the US signature of the Statute, as well as domestic and international actions of the US regarding protection of its citizens and regulating the cooperation with the ICC. In conclusion the author argues that it is unlikely that the US will rectify the Rome Statute.
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.
EN
Modern legal philosophy provides us with two main types of global justice theories. Distributive or egali­tarian theories claim that justice requires striving to achieve the global equality from us not only in legal but also economic dimension. On the other hand, there are many theories focusing on providing and keeping only „minimal standard” (i.e. human rights) and questioning the global equality as an ideal. In the article I investigate which type of theories describes contemporary international relations in the most accurate way (claiming that „minimal standard” theory does it) and I also wonder which type is more legitimate. In my opinion, considerations devoted to the question of global justice give us a well-established background for further studies on immigration policy, especially in the context of recent EU frontiers incidents.
EN
Using the example of a global pharmaceutical industry, I examine the role of private companies in fulfilling social aims. I address the problem of aid in the context of availability of affordable and safe medicines in developing countries, which is one aspect of fulfilling the right to health. Are the mechanisms of free market and philanthropic actions of pharmaceutical companies sufficient to guarantee essential medicines to the most vulnerable inhabitants of the world? Are international pharmaceutical concerns obliged to guarantee human rights only or to deliver human rights, in particular the right to health, as well? The article presents the conflict of interests between profit-driven pharmaceutical industry and ethically-driven public health, which can be fully addressed only by certain legal regulations. The thesis argued in the article is that free market itself cannot solve its failures (such as undersupply of innovations, undersupply of non-beneficial medicines, monopolistic policies and pricing); to solve the problem it is required to set up public institutions and legal regulations of both local and global scope. Neither free market, nor benevolent aid actions of pharmaceutical companies can address the problem of health care in developing countries, where the lack of medicines is a small aspect of a much broader and intricate problem of poverty and the weakness of state institutions which are not responsive to the basic needs of its citizens.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.