Cosmopolitan JusticeIncreasing global economic integration and recent military interventions in the name of human rights have forced questions of global justice into political discussions. In presenting a systematic account of global duties of justice, Cosmopolitan Justice departs from many contemporary accounts that take the scope of justice to be limited to the state or nation. Is the unequal distribution of wealth across the globe just? Are the most indebted countries obliged to pay back their loans to international financial institutions? Does respecting state sovereignty prohibit intervening in the affairs of other states? What is the moral basis of international law? Cosmopolitan Justice takes on these questions and much more. |
Contents
1 | |
2 Rawlsian Constructivism and Cosmopolitan Justice | 7 |
3 The Borders of Justice | 30 |
4 Global Egalitarianism and Imperialism | 68 |
5 Cosmopolitan Sovereignty and Justified Intervention | 102 |
6 A Cosmopolitan Account of National Selfdetermination | 128 |
7 Political Realism Pacifism and the Justice of War | 142 |
Toward an Egalitarian World Order | 171 |
Notes | 177 |
205 | |
217 | |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
According action advantaged argued argument association assume basic basis believe cause Chapter citizens claim commitment common compatriots conception concern Consider considerations cosmopolitan costs countries criticism cultural defend demands democratic developing distributive justice domestic duties of justice economic effects egalitarian entail equality establish example exist fact fair follow force given global governing holds human rights immigration important individuals inequalities injustice innocent institutions interests intervention involves justified killing least less liberal limited living maintain Marxism matter means merely military moral necessary noncompatriots object one's opportunity original particular peace persons policies political position possible practical principles principles of justice problem protect question Rawls reason relations representatives requires respect responsible result secede seems simply social society sovereignty structure Suppose theory tion trade true University Press unjust violate wrong