Global Distributive Justice and the State

Caney, Simon

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00748.x

Cited by 50 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second argument is directed at the assertion that the “principles of justice should be applied within states” and that “the state … has normative significance as a context of justice” (p. 487) [36]. Caney provides three reasons e why this “statist scope thesis”, the thesis that justice is the business of states and their citizens, is unfounded but goes on to provide four ways in which the state indeed has normative significance not contrary to cosmopolitanism but within the cosmopolitan perspective itself (See Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cosmopolitanism and foreign policy for health: ethics for and beyond the state

Lencucha

2013

BMC Int Health Hum Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundForeign policy holds great potential to improve the health of a global citizenship. Our contemporary political order is, in part, characterized by sovereign states acting either in opposition or cooperation with other sovereign states. This order is also characterized by transnational efforts to address transnational issues such as those featured so prominently in the area of global health, such as the spread of infectious disease, health worker migration and the movement of health-harming products. These two features of the current order understandably create tension for truly global initiatives.DiscussionNational security has become the dominant ethical frame underlying the health-based foreign policy of many states, despite the transnational nature of many contemporary health challenges. This ethical approach engages global health as a means to achieving national security objectives. Implicit in this ethical frame is the version of humanity that dichotomizes between “us” and “them”. What has been left out of this discourse, for the most part, is the role that foreign policy can play in extending the responsibility of states to protect and promote health of the other, for the sake of the other.SummaryThe principal purpose of this paper is to review arguments for a cosmopolitan ethics of health-based foreign policy. I will argue that health-based foreign policy that is motivated by security interests is lacking both morally and practically to further global health goals. In other words, a cosmopolitan ethic is not only intrinsically superior as a moral ideal, but also has potential to contribute to utilitarian ends. This paper draws on the cosmopolitanism literature to build robust support for foreign policies that contribute to sustainable systems of global health governance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cosmopolitanism and foreign policy for health: ethics for and beyond the state

Lencucha

2013

BMC Int Health Hum Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in debates about global justice (Blake 2001;Nagel 2005;Caney 2008). But now the problem is a slightly different one, namely that these considerations tend to focus exclusively on specific fundamental questions, e.g.…”

Section: Immigration In Political Philosophymentioning

confidence: 97%

What is the Right to Exclude Immigrants?

Lægaard

2010

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is normally taken for granted that states have a right to control immigration into their territory. When immigration is raised as a normative issue two questions become salient, one about what the right to exclude is, and one about whether and how it might be justified. This paper considers the first question. The paper starts by noting that standard debates about immigration have not addressed what the right to exclude is. Standard debates about immigration furthermore tend to result either in fairly strong cases for open borders or in denials that considerations of justice apply to immigration at all, which results in state discretion positions. This state of debate is both theoretically unsatisfactory and normatively implausible. The paper therefore explores an alternative approach to the right to exclude immigrants from the perspective of recent debates about the territorial rights of states. The right to exclude claimed by states is analysed and it is shown to differ both conceptually and normatively from rights to impose political authority within a territory. The paper finally indicates how this analysis might broaden the focus of debates about immigration and suggest alternative regimes of migration regulation the possibility of which is obscured by traditional justice approaches.

show abstract

“…Special ties between citizens (such as common history) are vulnerable to criticism because these relationships often do not coincide with state borders (Caney 2008). He defends the non-relational approach to global distributive justice based on the idea of positive duties.…”

Section: Caney and Miller On Global Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Uncovering Facts and Values: Studies in Contemporary Epistemology and Political Philosophy

Kuźniar¹,

Odrowąż‐Sypniewska²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global Distributive Justice and the State

Cited by 50 publications

References 43 publications

Cosmopolitanism and foreign policy for health: ethics for and beyond the state

Cosmopolitanism and foreign policy for health: ethics for and beyond the state

What is the Right to Exclude Immigrants?

Uncovering Facts and Values: Studies in Contemporary Epistemology and Political Philosophy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About