This review paper critically assesses the two main theories of global justice, statism and cosmopolitanism, according to which fundamental rights, and their corresponding duties, ought to be differently upheld, and enforced, at the global level. Its main aim is to go beyond the limitations of these theories defending the equal relevance of both fundamental civil and political rights and socio-economic rights, and their corresponding duties, at the global level and the need for the assessment of their implementation according to the level of their justification. To pursue this objective, the paper argues for the conceptualization of a fair (common) mean among these two categories of rights which can be morally and politically constructed on the very basic right to reciprocal and general justification. Accordingly, the focus is posed on the interconnection as well as conflicts between these two categories of rights, and their corresponding duties, establishing a measure according to which their justification can be assessed, and their implementation and enforcement be ensured. This paper seeks also to prove that this conceptualization of fundamental rights and duties, which takes together Aristotles conception of justice and Forsts critical theory of political and social justice, can provide a sketch on how a fair implementation and enforcement of peoples and persons rights and duties ought to be conceived at the global level.
Global socioeconomic inequalities are one of the greatest challenges of the contemporary era since they represent a gruesome fact for the whole of humanity. This article seeks to provide a picture of the current socioeconomic inequalities at the global level and analyze the extent to which they ought to be assessed as unjust. To pursue this aim, the article examines the empirical evidence related to the growth in global socioeconomic inequalities and critically assesses them in light of the principle of redress of morally arbitrary inequalities. The article claims that global socioeconomic inequalities are affected by two relevant problematics in both methodological and normative terms. The empirical analysis demonstrates that there is a widespread methodological nationalism that jeopardizes the discussion on socioeconomic inequalities at the global level while the critical assessment of the socioeconomic inequalities shows that their strong injustice can be defended even against the Rawlsian objections to the principle of redress of morally arbitrary inequalities.
Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.