Debates about global justice have traditionally fallen into two camps. Statists believe that principles of justice can only be held among those who share a state. Those who fall outside this realm are merely owed charity. Cosmopolitans, on the other hand, believe that justice applies equally among all human beings. On Global Justice shifts the terms of this debate and shows how both views are unsatisfactory. Stressing humanity's collective ownership of the earth, Mathias Risse offers a new theory of global distributive justice--what he calls pluralist internationalism--where in different contexts, different principles of justice apply. Arguing that statists and cosmopolitans seek overarching answers to problems that vary too widely for one single justice relationship, Risse explores who should have how much of what we all need and care about, ranging from income and rights to spaces and resources of the earth. He acknowledges that especially demanding redistributive principles apply among those who share a country, but those who share a country also have obligations of justice to those who do not because of a universal humanity, common political and economic orders, and a linked global trading system. Risse's inquiries about ownership of the earth give insights into immigration, obligations to future generations, and obligations arising from climate change. He considers issues such as fairness in trade, responsibilities of the WTO, intellectual property rights, labor rights, whether there ought to be states at all, and global inequality, and he develops a new foundational theory of human rights.

This book offers a moral argument for world government, claiming that not only do we have strong obligations to people elsewhere, but that accountable integration among nation-states will help ensure all persons can lead a decent life.

In the late twentieth century many writers and activists envisioned new possibilities of transnational cooperation toward peace and global justice. In this book Iris Marion Young aims to revive such hopes by responding clearly to what are seen as the global challenges of the modern day. Inspired by claims of indigenous peoples, the book develops a concept of self-determination compatible with stronger institutions of global regulation. It theorizes new directions for thinking about federated relationships between peoples which assume that they need not be large or symmetrical. Young argues that the use of armed force to respond to oppression should be rare, genuinely multilateral, and follow a model of law enforcement more than war. She finds that neither cosmopolitan nor nationalist responses to questions of global justice are adequate and so offers a distinctive conception of responsibility, founded on participation in social structures, to describe the obligations that both individuals and organizations have in a world of global interdependence. Young applies clear analysis and cogent moral arguments to concrete cases, including the wars against Serbia and Iraq, the meaning of the US Patriot Act, the conflict in Palestine/Israel, and working conditions in sweat shops.

Global political actors, from states and NGOs to activist groups and individuals, exert influence in societies beyond their own in myriad ways--including via public criticism, consumer boycotts, divestment campaigns, sanctions, and forceful intervention. Often, they do so in the name of justice-promotion. While attempts to promote justice in other societies can do good, they are also often subject to moral criticism and raise several serious moral questions. For example, are there ways to promote one's own ideas about justice in another society while still treating its members tolerantly? Are there ways to do so without disrespecting their legitimate political institutions or undermining their collective self-determination? To understand the ethics of justice-promoting intervention, Lucia M. Rafanelli moves beyond the traditional focus of other scholarship in this area on states waging wars or employing other conventional tools of coercive foreign policy. Specifically, Rafanelli constructs a philosophically-grounded and nuanced ethics of intervention to determine when attempts to promote justice in foreign societies are morally permissible. Promoting Justice Across Borders develops ethical standards for justice-promoting intervention that call on us to rethink received notions about the ordinary bounds of politics, and to abandon the thought that politics does and should take place primarily within the state. These ethical standards also give us a model for how to engage in political struggles for justice on a global scale--not only in conditions of supreme emergency, but in the ordinary circumstances of everyday global politics. They therefore form the basis of a cosmopolitanism that is neither premised upon nor aimed at bringing about the end of politics. Ultimately, Rafanelli shows how the promotion of justice everywhere can be the legitimate (political) concern of people anywhere.

This book offers a comparative analysis of the theories of justice developed by Rawls, Sen and Nussbaum, and aims to demonstrate their mutual relationship. All three liberal theories significantly enrich the set of fundamental principles of morality that concerns the sphere of political action. The novelty of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s capability approach in comparison with Rawls is that they discuss the problem of social justice on a global scale. They do not try to extend and adjust the two principles of justice to the whole of mankind, nor do they treat the difference principle as to be applied everywhere. Instead, they present their own cosmopolitan approach to applying their theories of justice to take into account issues which are neglected or insufficiently developed by Rawls, such as global inequalities, discrimination against women, the rights of people with disabilities, and animal rights. These theories can be described as an alternative to the crucial objection towards Rawls’ work that this theory of justice does not address these important global problems.

A unique compendium of foundational and contemporary writings in global justice, newly revised and expanded The Global Justice Reader is the first resource of its kind to focus exclusively on this important topic in moral and political philosophy, providing an expertly curated selection of both classic and contemporary work in one comprehensive volume. Purpose-built for course work, this collection brings together the best in the field to help students appreciate the philosophical dimensions of critical global issues and chart the development of diverse concepts of justice and morality. Newly revised and expanded, the Reader presents key writings of the most influential writers on global justice, including Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Martha C. Nussbaum, and Peter Singer. Thirty-nine chapters across eleven thematically organized sections explore sovereignty, rights to self-determination, human rights, nationalism and patriotism, cosmopolitanism, global poverty, women and global justice, climate change, and more. Features seminal works from the moral and political philosophers of the past as well as important writings from leading contemporary thinkers Explores critical topics in current discourses surrounding immigration and citizenship, global poverty, just war, terrorism, and international environmental justice Highlights the need for shared philosophical resources to help address global problems Includes a brief introduction in each section setting out the issues of concern to global justice theorists Contains complete references in each chapter and a fully up-to-date, extended bibliography to supplement further readings The revised edition of The Global Justice Reader remains an ideal textbook for undergraduate and graduate courses in global justice and human rights, cosmopolitanism and nationalism, environmental justice, and social justice and citizenship, and an excellent supplement for general courses in political philosophy, political science, social science, and law.

The Dialectics of Global Justice uses a novel application of negative dialectical interpretation to offer an immanent and ethical critique of prominent theories of global justice (i.e., cosmopolitanism), including how these theories manifest in political movements and policy agendas. Drawing on the work of Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm especially, author Bryant William Sculos exposes the contradictory relationship between cosmopolitanism and core elements of capitalism, particularly the domineering "capitalistic mentality" (re)produced by and through capitalism, leading to the conclusion that cosmopolitanism, on its own terms, demands an alternative, postcapitalistic political basis in order to make robust progress toward global justice. While offering this critique, Sculos also implicitly challenges the increasingly common view that cosmopolitanism today is inherently imperialistic and out of touch with the global resurgence of nationalism and anti-cosmopolitan sentiment.