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.
Steering a middle course between cosmopolitanism and a narrow nationalism, the book develops an original theory of global justice that also addresses controversial topics such as immigration and reparations for historic wrongdoing.
Offering a new interdisciplinary approach to global justice and integrating the insights of international relations and contemporary ethics, this book asks whether the core norms of international law are just by appraising them according to a standard of global justice grounded in the advancement of peace and protection of human rights.
The book assesses emerging powers’ influence on international economic law and analyses whether their rhetoric of reforming this ‘unjust’ order translates into concrete reforms. The questions at the heart of the book surround the extent to which Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa individually and as a bloc (BRICS) provide alternative regulatory ideas to those of ‘Western’ States and whether they are able to convert their increased power into influence on global regulation. To do so, the book investigates two broader case studies, namely, the reform of international investment agreements and WTO reform negotiations since the start of the Doha Development Round. As a general outcome, it finds that emerging powers do not radically challenge established law. ‘Third World’ rhetoric mostly does not translate into practice and rather serves to veil economic interests. Still, emerging powers provide for some alternative regulatory ideas, already leading to a diversification of international economic law. As a general rule, they tend to support norms that allow host States much policy space which could be used to protect and fulfil socio-economic human rights, especially – but not only – in the Global South.