GLOBAL JUSTICE

The concept of justice in international relations is relatively new one as ancient, medieval and
early modern thinkers focused on justice within the state. Delivering justice was mainly the
duty of the state and the international dimension of justice remained neglected. In the
contemporary times, however, there is growing interest in international aspects of justice due
to the revival of interest in normative political philosophy since the 1960s, intensification of
globalisation and a shift in how global politics is understood away from state-centric approach.
There is a realisation that in an interconnected and globalised world, the problems and their
solutions have to be global.
In the western tradition, international justice can be found in the tradition of natural law which
is a system of rights or justice common to all human beings and derived from nature and not
the rules of society. Greek Stoics had professed that we have a moral relationship with those
beyond our state and believed they were citizens of the world. The Indian tradition of
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, means the world is one family espouses the cause of global justice
and cooperation. Indian philosophers have also emphasised the value of spiritual dimension of
justice where individuals around the world should be valued. There have always been causes
with global approach that have crossed borders, for ex, the cause of transatlantic slave trade or
the movement against imperialist oppression. However, the conception of justice in global
context has been idealistic while in practical terms, realism has dominated global politics.
Classic realism traces its roots from thinkers like Kautilya, Thucydides, Thomas Hobbes and
Niccolo Machiavelli. It states that individuals are selfish by nature and believe in self-
aggrandisement including power. To ensure national security, states resort to wars in order to
ensure higher levels of security. Thucydides had famously said, “The strong do what they will,
the weak suffer what they must.” Hence, one can say that realism stands for amoral justice in
the global context and is insensitive to the interests of the weaker states and the problems which
are common to all mankind like climate change. There is no dearth of examples in international
relations to show prevalence of injustice. Treaty of Versailles signed after the First World War
and the war crimes trial at Nuremberg and Tokyo after the Second World War are examples of
justice by victorious states. The exploitation and injustice done by the industrialised countries
on their colonies during the colonial era too can be cited here as an example.
more socialistic
There is a distinction between international justice and global justice. In case of international
justice, the focus is on state as a unit and the idea of justice among states is discussed.
Supporters of international justice believe that inequalities between states should not become
wide and efforts are required to keep them at permissible levels. Global justice is a component
in normative international relations theory that focuses on the moral obligation of the world’s
rich to the world’s poor. Here, the key theme is redistribution of wealth to reduce poverty and
inequality. In global justice, the focus is not on the states, but human beings and it seeks to
discuss what justice means to the human beings around the world. Apart from states, global
justice also includes possible agents and organisations that have a duty towards global justice.
The individual is at the centre of global justice theorists because of three reasons cited by
Thomas Pogge. One, the individual is the prime unit of moral concern. Second, no one should
be allowed to suffer for reasons outside their control and lastly, if individuals suffer for
avoidable reasons, citizens of the richer countries have an obligation of justice towards the
global poor. For thinkers like J J Rousseau and John Rawls, state will be the focal point of an
international social contract. However, for other like Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Pogge, and
Charles Beitz, human beings will be the core around which any conception of international
social contract would revolve. Such conception is required to meet basic liberal principles of
justice. Hence, justice in international relations is conceptualised moving away from the state
centric (international) form of justice to individual centric (global) form of justice.

Approaches to Global Justice:

There are mainly three approaches to global justice – cosmopolitan, communitarian and realist.
Cosmopolitan view has a global outlook while communitarian and realist perspectives are state
centric.
Cosmopolitan view of global justice is influenced by Immanuel Kant and his ideas that
individual rights in some sense should take precedence over states in international politics. The
individual is inviolable as an end in itself and the state should not treat him as a means.
Cosmopolitans make the moral argument that human beings should be seen as a basic unit who
have equal claim to decent life. The issues of culture, nationality, sex and race should not be a
hindrance in achievement of this objective. They believe that as a result of globalisation, a basic
structure has emerged which impacts lives of people around the world. Cosmopolitans also
argue that there is an urgent need to reform global institutions like the World Trade
Organisation, World Bank and International Monetary Fund to make them in accordance with
the principles of global justice. Cosmopolitans say there is need to have global citizens who
are committed to global values instead of national affiliations. Hence, one can say that national
borders are irrelevant to cosmopolitans.
John Rawls in his work, The Law of Peoples (1999) has addressed some of the issues pertaining
to global justice. In his eight principles, he seeks respect for human rights and duty to assist
other people who are deprived of a good living. However, he is a statist since he distinguishes
between domestic and global society on the basis of independence and national self-
determination. He also suggests that the West is not obliged to transfer resources to global poor
as help from outside cannot develop capacity of people to take of their needs and hence,
political and social injustices will continue. In contrast to Rawls, Thomas Pogge argues that
there is huge gap between global poor and rich due to ‘global institutional order’. This order is
sustained through collaboration between powerful governments in the North, authoritarian
rulers in developing world and business elites with global interests. The authoritarian leaders
sell their country’s resources to multinational corporations and the benefits do not reach the
global poor. Pogge argues for an alternate global economic order that would be beneficial for
the poor as well.
Communitarians like GWF Hegel, give more importance to state in caring for and fostering the
individual allowing his or her full development as a citizen. Here, the political community takes
precedence over the individual. In contrast to cosmopolitan views that emphasise universal
values and idea of global community, communitarians argue entrenchment within deep,
meaningful cultural practices and relations. Instead of global outlook, communitarians give
importance to territorial sovereignty and integrity. Thomas Nagel opines that there is a direct
link between justice and collective practices and institutions which can be established only
under a sovereign authority. He argues that global justice will not exist as it is linked to
associative institutions which are not available at the global level. According to him, ‘Justice
is something we owe through our shared institutions only to those we stand in a strong political
relation. It is, in the standard terminology, as Associative Obligation’. David Miller also says
that the idea of justice flows from specific cultural contexts which contradict the notion of
global justice. For him, citizenship and nationality matter the most which lead to special
entitlements and duties. These concepts are not applicable at the global level and hence, the
idea of global justice is a nonstarter for him.
Lastly, the realist conception of international relations is not conducive to the idea of global
justice. Realism stands for state sovereignty and security against individual well-being (human
security). Realists would argue that states are constantly preparing for war and international
system is anarchic. War is more common than peace in international relations, according to
realists. Since state security is paramount for realists, issues like poverty will not be given
importance.

Reasons for Global Justice:

There are a number of reasons behind demands for global justice and some
prominent reasons are elaborated below.
Globalization and Economic Injustice- In the economic realm, globalization reflects the idea
that no economy in the world is isolated today and there is an inter-locking global economy
which has absorbed various economies around the world. Economic globalization has reduced
capacity of national governments to manage their economies and to resist their restructuring
along free market principles. Its features include globally integrated economy, regulations of
economies by supranational institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO),
commitment to remove barriers to free trade and higher levels of economic interdependence.
There is no unanimous view on the impact of globalization, but it has its benefits and costs.
Globalization has resulted in economic leaps in countries like India and China lifting millions
out of poverty. However, it has also increased prices of medicines in poor countries by
agreements like Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). People in
developing and less developed countries have lost access to life saving drugs as a result. There
are countries like Qatar whose per capita income is in excess of $100,000 while there are
countries like Central Africa Republic and Burundi where per capita income is less than $1,000.
Globalization leads to entrenched forms of inequality giving rise to winners and losers. In the
game of globalization, industrially advanced countries in Europe and the US have been the
winners while the losers are the developing and least developed countries where wages are low,
regulation is weak and production is oriented towards global rather than domestic markets.
This leads to north-south divide as the industrial development is concentrated in the northern
hemisphere (developed countries) while disadvantage and poverty are mainly found in the
southern hemisphere. Given this divide, there are demands that there should be redistribution
of wealth at the global level from the developed to less developed countries. Global problems
should have global solutions which demands global justice.

Rise of Human Rights- Human rights have become the aim to achieve global social justice as
reflected in moral cosmopolitanism. By virtue of being humans, all persons have certain claims
on society. They include mainly three areas - what governments can do to you, cannot do to
you and should do for you. Human rights are inalienable - individuals cannot lose these rights,
indivisible - individuals cannot be denied a right on the grounds that it is less important and
human rights are also interdependent – one right impacts the other and vice-versa. Thomas
Pogge argues that the current international institutional order fails to provide rights and
freedoms like health and food to individuals set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights 1948. He has highlighted that the international order aggravates poverty through
protectionism and aggressive enforcement of intellectual property rights in seeds and
medicines. He also argues that the international order also fosters corrupt and oppressive
governments in poorer countries as it recognises the person or group holding effective power,
regardless of how they acquired or exercise it. Such governments not only misuse state
resources to impose debt service obligations on the ordinary citizens, but also bind present and
future generations in an unsustainable model of development.
To ensure justice, war has been used as a tool to promote and protect human rights in the past
at the global level. In what is often called humanitarian intervention, powerful states resort to
this tactic to alleviate extensive human suffering within borders of a state. In 1990s, there were
such interventions in countries like Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. A number of external
interventions have been justified on the grounds of democracy and human rights promotion.
The failure of democracy promotion in Iraq and Afghanistan has raised doubts whether such
external interventions is justified or not. The war itself leads to violation of human rights which
defeats the purpose and idea of human rights and global justice.
acc. to WHO every 1/8 citizen is migrating
Issues of Immigration- Movement of people from one country to another is also part of the
debate on global justice. Conflicts around the world and disparities in living standards are two
main issues that lead to movement of people from one country to another. According to an
281
estimate of the United Nations, there were 258 million international migrants in the world in
2017. The largest numbers of migrants stay in the US, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Russia and the
United Kingdom. Due to many conflicts around the world, a debate has reignited around the
rights of refugees, for ex Rohingyas from Myanmar. Some questions are being asked like,
should the states have complete control over their borders? Who will take care of the human
rights of refugees? Should the developed countries do more and allow refugees to stay in their
society? What would be the impact of such a movement of people on the host countries etc?
There is also a debate over multiculturalism, in this context as the migrants are seen as a
minority in the host country. Equal rights of citizens are seen to be inconsistent with rights of
minority groups like migrants. Will Kymlicka in his 1995 book, ‘Multicultural Citizenship: A
Liberal Theory of Minority Rights’ has argued that certain sorts of `collective rights’ for
minority cultures are consistent with liberal democratic principles. Some liberals worry that
granting concessions to minority or ethnic groups hurts democracy: democracy, for them,
requires a common citizenship based on individualism and formal equality. When a particular
group seeks some accommodation, this requires us to treat people differently based on their
group affiliation, which strikes many as illiberal. However, Kymlicka makes a case that the
request for accommodation actually reflects minorities’ desires to integrate. Nevertheless, the
issues of immigration and minority rights continue to be a ground for debate and disagreements,
and as such a crucial matter that demands global solution.

Climate Change and Environmental Hazards- Apart from traditional/military threats, any
country can face other non-military concerns that endanger human security, including climate
change, terrorism, energy, food and water security etc. These threats are transnational in
character i.e. they have impact beyond the borders of one state. In addition, they complement
each other and can combine to pose a bigger challenge. Hence, to tackle such threats, the
governments around the world need to cooperate given the global nature of the problem.
Climate change is one such threat that poses a serious question to the survival of human beings.
The rise in temperatures around the world due to increase in greenhouse gas emissions will
lead to a number of problems– flooding, rise in sea level, environmental degradation, food
insecurity, loss of livelihoods and mass migration leading to climate refugees. According to an
estimate by the World Health Organisation, climate change impacts will kill more than 250,000
people each year between 2030 and 2050. Apart from human costs involved, there are
economic costs as well. Scientists from the Stanford University have calculated that if nothing
is done to tackle climate change, the global gross domestic product will fall by 30 percent in
2100 compared to 2010 level. Hence, there are attempts to cut down greenhouse gas emissions
and to deal with the problem at the global level.
The term climate justice has been coined to reflect global warming as a political and ethical
issue not merely limited to environmental aspects. Concerns of human rights and social justice
are part of climate justice as indigenous people and residents of developing and least developed
countries will be the biggest sufferers due to climate change. Small countries like Tuvalu and
Maldives are facing the threat of sea level rise. Issues of distributive justice are involved as
climate change negotiations focus on cutting down the emissions and the critical questions are
– which countries are responsible for climate change and which countries will cut down
emissions and by how much? The general belief is that the industrialised countries have
contributed more to climate change compared to the developing or least developed countries.
But in the actual working of global level initiatives, there is no consensus on the allocation of
burden and responsibility and setting of targets for each country.

Issues of Health and Gender Inequality- There is widespread disparity in health sector at the
global level. Life expectancy varies across the globe and generally, the developing and least
developed countries have lower life expectancy compared to the developed countries. Poverty
and gender are two critical factors that decide impact on health of an individual. In the
developing world, around ten million people die of health problems that can otherwise be
managed and prevented including diarrhoea, tuberculosis, and malaria. Children in the
developing countries are ten times more likely to die before the age of ten compared to their
counterparts in the developed world. Child mortality rate also leads to high maternal mortality
rate, mainly in the developing countries. Women are more prone to anaemia than men and it
affects not only their health, but also the health of their children. Apart from these issues, there
are also concerns over the intellectual property rights regime under the World Trade
Organisation as it raises the costs of medicines for diseases like cancer and AIDS and puts them
outside the reach of the global poor. Women are generally treated as inferior to men across
most of the cultures. Practices like honour killing, infanticide and genital mutilation still persist
which are against their human rights. The international awareness is growing around the issues
of health and gender and they are part of the Sustainable Development Goals envisaged by the
United Nations to be achieved by 2030. Global justice seeks to bridge these disparities of
gender and health at the global level to reflect the interests of the poor and marginalised people.

There are certain limitations to the idea of global justice. It is incompatible with the present
nation-state system as states are the central unit of international system. Human security issues
like health, climate change and human rights mainly come under the supervision of states and
various governments may or may not give importance to such concerns. Secondly, there is a
lack of global institutions which can enforce justice at global level. Thirdly, the debates on
global justice are mainly confined to western intellectuals. Since global justice is concerned
with duties of the richer west towards the global poor, scholars from developing world are
mostly excluded from the debate.

Source: IGNOU