Pluralism and global justice
A central question in the debate surrounding contemporary proposals for a new international order is whether accepting the fact of global pluralism should lead us to lower our ambitions for global justice. Many participants in that debate answer such a question positively. Even authors such as Rawls...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2011 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:68892 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/68892 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5565/rev/enrahonar/v46.190 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Cosmopolitanisme Justícia global Globalització Drets humans Consens per solapament Pluralisme Cosmopolitanism Global justice Globalization Habermas Human rights Overlapping consensos Pluralism Rawls Cosmopolitanismo Justicia global Globalización Derechos humanos Consenso por solapamiento Pluralismo |
| id |
ES_f8fa11f5102cbcfdf41bc89cc0a21864 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ddd.uab.cat:68892 |
| network_acronym_str |
ES |
| network_name_str |
España |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Pluralism and global justice Pluralismo y justicia global |
| title |
Pluralism and global justice |
| spellingShingle |
Pluralism and global justice Lafont, Cristina Cosmopolitanisme Justícia global Globalització Drets humans Consens per solapament Pluralisme Cosmopolitanism Global justice Globalization Habermas Human rights Overlapping consensos Pluralism Rawls Cosmopolitanismo Justicia global Globalización Derechos humanos Consenso por solapamiento Pluralismo |
| title_short |
Pluralism and global justice |
| title_full |
Pluralism and global justice |
| title_fullStr |
Pluralism and global justice |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Pluralism and global justice |
| title_sort |
Pluralism and global justice |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Lafont, Cristina |
| author |
Lafont, Cristina |
| author_facet |
Lafont, Cristina |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Cosmopolitanisme Justícia global Globalització Drets humans Consens per solapament Pluralisme Cosmopolitanism Global justice Globalization Habermas Human rights Overlapping consensos Pluralism Rawls Cosmopolitanismo Justicia global Globalización Derechos humanos Consenso por solapamiento Pluralismo |
| topic |
Cosmopolitanisme Justícia global Globalització Drets humans Consens per solapament Pluralisme Cosmopolitanism Global justice Globalization Habermas Human rights Overlapping consensos Pluralism Rawls Cosmopolitanismo Justicia global Globalización Derechos humanos Consenso por solapamiento Pluralismo |
| description |
A central question in the debate surrounding contemporary proposals for a new international order is whether accepting the fact of global pluralism should lead us to lower our ambitions for global justice. Many participants in that debate answer such a question positively. Even authors such as Rawls and Habermas both prominent defenders of ambitious conceptions of domestic justice seem to reach the same pessimistic conclusion with their respective proposals for a new international order. In this paper, I question the plausibility of such a conclusion on the basis of an analysis of the cosmopolitan project that Habermas articulates in recent publications. I argue that his presentation of the project oscillates between two models. The first is an ambitious model for a future international order geared towards fulfilling the human rights goals of the UN Charter. The second is a minimalist model, in which the international community's obligation to protect human rights is limited to the negative duty of preventing wars of aggression and massive human rights violations stemming from armed conflicts such as ethnic cleansing or genocide. According to this model, any more ambitious goals should be left to a global domestic politics, which would have to come about through negotiated compromises among domesticated major powers at the transnational level. I defend the ambitious model by arguing that there is no plausible basis for drawing a normatively significant distinction between massive human rights violations stemming from armed conflicts and those stemming from regulations of the global economic order. If this is correct, acceptance of the fact of global pluralism does not offer a plausible justification to exclude economic justice from the principles of transnational justice recognized by the international community. |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2 2011-01-01 2011 2011-01-01 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
Article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 VoR http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
https://ddd.uab.cat/record/68892 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5565/rev/enrahonar/v46.190 |
| url |
https://ddd.uab.cat/record/68892 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5565/rev/enrahonar/v46.190 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
Inglés eng |
| language_invalid_str_mv |
Inglés |
| language |
eng |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
open access http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ |
| dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
open access http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB instname:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| instname_str |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| reponame_str |
Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| collection |
Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
|
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1869425051957198848 |
| spelling |
Pluralism and global justicePluralismo y justicia globalLafont, CristinaCosmopolitanismeJustícia globalGlobalitzacióDrets humansConsens per solapamentPluralismeCosmopolitanismGlobal justiceGlobalizationHabermasHuman rightsOverlapping consensosPluralismRawlsCosmopolitanismoJusticia globalGlobalizaciónDerechos humanosConsenso por solapamientoPluralismoA central question in the debate surrounding contemporary proposals for a new international order is whether accepting the fact of global pluralism should lead us to lower our ambitions for global justice. Many participants in that debate answer such a question positively. Even authors such as Rawls and Habermas both prominent defenders of ambitious conceptions of domestic justice seem to reach the same pessimistic conclusion with their respective proposals for a new international order. In this paper, I question the plausibility of such a conclusion on the basis of an analysis of the cosmopolitan project that Habermas articulates in recent publications. I argue that his presentation of the project oscillates between two models. The first is an ambitious model for a future international order geared towards fulfilling the human rights goals of the UN Charter. The second is a minimalist model, in which the international community's obligation to protect human rights is limited to the negative duty of preventing wars of aggression and massive human rights violations stemming from armed conflicts such as ethnic cleansing or genocide. According to this model, any more ambitious goals should be left to a global domestic politics, which would have to come about through negotiated compromises among domesticated major powers at the transnational level. I defend the ambitious model by arguing that there is no plausible basis for drawing a normatively significant distinction between massive human rights violations stemming from armed conflicts and those stemming from regulations of the global economic order. If this is correct, acceptance of the fact of global pluralism does not offer a plausible justification to exclude economic justice from the principles of transnational justice recognized by the international community.Una cuestión central en el debate en torno a propuestas contemporáneas para un nuevo orden internacional es la de si aceptar el hecho del pluralismo global ha de llevarnos a rebajar nuestras expectativas de justicia global. Muchos de los participantes en este debate responden de modo afirmativo a esta pregunta. Incluso autores como Rawls y Habermas ambos prominentes defensores de concepciones ambiciosas de justicia doméstica parecen llegar a dicha conclusión pesimista en sus respectivas propuestas para un nuevo orden internacional. En este artículo, cuestiono la plausibilidad de tal conclusión a partir de un análisis del proyecto cosmopolita que Habermas ha articulado en publicaciones recientes. Argumento que su presentación del proyecto oscila entre dos modelos. El primero es un modelo ambicioso para un futuro orden internacional dirigido a cumplir los objetivos de derechos humanos contenidos en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas. El segundo es un modelo minimalista donde el deber de proteger los derechos humanos por parte de la comunidad internacional está limitado a la obligación negativa de prevenir guerras de agresión y violaciones masivas de los derechos humanos provenientes de conflictos armados como limpiezas étnicas o genocidio. Según este modelo, cualquier objetivo de justicia más ambicioso quedaría relegado a una política doméstica global acordada mediante la negociación de compromisos entre unas grandes potencias domesticadas. En contra de esta interpretación minimalista y a favor de la interpretación ambiciosa del modelo, argumento que no hay ninguna base normativa plausible para trazar una distinción significativa entre violaciones masivas de los derechos humanos debidas a conflictos armados y violaciones debidas a las regulaciones internacionales del orden económico global. Si esto es cierto, aceptar el hecho del pluralismo global no ofrece una justificación plausible para excluir la justicia económica de los principios de justicia transnacional reconocidos por la comunidad internacional. 22011-01-0120112011-01-01Articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://ddd.uab.cat/record/68892https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5565/rev/enrahonar/v46.190reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UABinstname:Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Aquest document està subjecte a una llicència d'ús Creative Commons. Es permet la reproducció total o parcial, la distribució, la comunicació pública de l'obra i la creació d'obres derivades, sempre que no sigui amb finalitats comercials, i sempre que es reconegui l'autoria de l'obra original.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ddd.uab.cat:688922026-06-06T12:50:31Z |
| score |
15,301629 |