Global Justice in the Contemporary Literature

  • John Charvet


This chapter discusses the main non-utilitarian conceptions of global justice found in the contemporary literature. The main division is between liberal individualists and nationalists who see nations as bearers of communitarian values. Since the liberal individualists base their conception of justice on the worth inhering in the separate individual by virtue of his capacity for autonomous self-direction in accordance with a self-chosen conception of the good together with a sense of justice — capacities possessed by all human beings — one would suppose that they must be committed to a cosmopolitan understanding of the justice that applies in the global sphere. They should surely believe that all human beings have the same fundamental worth and just claims independently of their belonging to this or that particular state so that realizing justice in the global sphere must consist in moving towards a world in which these equal claims of all individuals can be met.1


Moral Community Social Cooperation Special Obligation Global Justice Equal Concern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A powerful expression of this idea is to be found in S. Black (1991), ‘Individualism at an Impasse’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21/3: 347–77.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rawls in his account talks always of peoples rather than states. His reason for this is that we can attribute moral motives to peoples — such as the motive of abiding by the law of peoples — but we cannot attribute moral motives to states. This seems to me and others to be entirely unwarranted — especially as Rawls’s notion of a people here is that of an independent political community and hence is what others standardly call a state. Because of this, I shall ignore Rawls’s own usage and talk simply of states or independent political communities. J. Rawls (1999b), The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Nagel (2005), ‘The Problem of Global Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33/2: 115.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Rawls (1999a), A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 98–100Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    R. Dworkin (2000), Sovereign Virtue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    R. Dworkin (2011), Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) 327.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    S. Caney (2005), Justice Beyond Borders (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 16.
    T. Pogge (1994), ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’, in C. Brown (ed.), Political Re-Structuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (London: Routledge), 89–122Google Scholar
  9. 18.
    H. Reiss (ed.) (1970), Kant’s Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 47Google Scholar
  10. L. Ypi (2012), Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    C. Beitz (1999), Political Theory and International Relations, 2nd edn. (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 142–54Google Scholar
  12. T. Pogge (1989), Realizing Rawls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press)Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    B. Barry (1991), ‘Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective’, in his Liberty and Justice: Essays in Political Theory, 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 194.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    D. A. J. Richards (1982), ‘International Distributive Justice’, in J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (eds), Ethics, Economics and the Law: Nomos XXIV (New York: New York University Press), 278–82Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    C. Beitz (1983), ‘Cosmopolitan Ideals and National Sentiment’, Journal of Philosophy 80: 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 27.
    Caney discusses anti-cosmopolitan conceptions of international relations based on the idea of a society or system of states. Justice, 165–71. I have discussed the issues, together with Eliza Kaczynska-Nay, especially as they bear on the promotion of universal human rights, in J. Charvet and E. Kaczynska-Nay (2008), The Liberal Project and Human Rights: The Theory and Practice of a New World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 42–59Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    D. Held (1995), Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity)Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    As by D. Miller (1995), On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 90–8.Google Scholar
  19. 35.
    Charvet and Kaczynska-Nay, Liberal Project, 318–49; S. Caney (2000), ‘Human Rights, Compatibility and Diverse Cultures’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 3/1: 51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 36.
    D. Miller (2007), National Responsibility and Global Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 37.
    Margaret Moore (2001) has a judicious discussion of the idea of nations as intrinsically valuable in her The Ethics of Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 38.
    A. Smith (1991), National Identity (London: Penguin Books)Google Scholar
  23. J. Hutchinson and A. Smith (eds.) (1994), Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  24. 40.
    Bede (1990), Ecclesiastical History of the English People, tr. Leo Sherley-Price, rev. R. E. Latham (London: Penguin Books).Google Scholar
  25. 41.
    J. S. Mill (1910), ‘Representative Government’, in Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government (London: J. M. Dent), 362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John Charvet 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Charvet
    • 1
  1. 1.London School of EconomicsUK

Personalised recommendations