Skip to main content

GLOBAL JUSTICE WITHOUT END?

Buy Article:

$51.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Abstract:

John Rawls argued in The Law of Peoples that we should reject any principle of international distributive justice, whether in ideal theory or nonideal theory. Instead, he advocated a duty of assistance on the part of well-ordered societies toward burdened societies. I argue that Rawls is correct that we should endorse a principle with a target and cut-off point rather than a principle of international distributive justice. But the target and cut-off point he favors is too undemanding, because it can be met by assisting a burdened society to become a decent people. Instead, only a society that respects the right to an adequate standard of living, and not simply a right to subsistence, can be an acceptable target. Rawls is prevented from drawing this conclusion by a failure to disentangle issues of intervention and assistance, a failure bound up with his flawed, intervention-driven account of human rights in defining a decent people.

Keywords: distributive justice; duty of assistance; human rights; international justice; intervention; self-determination; standard of living

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00354.x

Affiliations: Corpus Christi College, Oxford OX1 4JF, United Kingdom , Email: john.tasioulas@corpus-christi.ox.ac.uk

Publication date: January 1, 2005

bpl/meta/2005/00000036/F0020001/art00002
dcterms_title,dcterms_description,pub_keyword
6
5
20
40
5

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more