Evaluating Rawls' Stance on Global Justice: Peoples vs. Persons
A Critical Examination of Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" and its Core Controversies
Key Insights into Rawls's Global Justice Framework
- Centrality of Peoples: John Rawls, in "The Law of Peoples," posits that the primary subjects of international justice are "peoples" rather than individual persons, drawing a distinction between domestic and international principles of justice.
- Duty of Assistance: While advocating for a society of peoples, Rawls includes a "duty of assistance" from well-ordered peoples to burdened societies to help them become well-ordered, but this is often criticized for not demanding sufficient global economic redistribution.
- Cosmopolitan Critiques: A significant challenge to Rawls's position comes from cosmopolitan theorists who argue that justice should fundamentally concern individuals globally, asserting that a global basic structure necessitates principles of justice that apply to all persons regardless of state borders.
John Rawls, a highly influential political philosopher of the 20th century, extended his theories of justice beyond the confines of a single state in his work, "The Law of Peoples." In this significant contribution to international political theory, Rawls argues for a framework of global justice that takes "peoples" as its primary subjects, rather than individual persons. This stands in contrast to his domestic theory of justice, "Justice as Fairness," where individuals are the fundamental concern. Rawls's distinction between the domestic and international spheres of justice, and his emphasis on peoples, has been a subject of extensive debate and criticism among political philosophers and international relations theorists.
Understanding Rawls's "The Law of Peoples"
In "The Law of Peoples," Rawls aims to outline the principles that should govern the international relations of liberal and decent peoples. He envisions a "Society of Peoples" where these well-ordered peoples interact based on a set of mutually agreed-upon principles, arrived at through a second original position. Unlike the first original position in "A Theory of Justice" where representatives of individuals within a single society decide on principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance, the parties in the second original position represent peoples.
Rawls identifies several types of domestic societies, including liberal peoples, decent hierarchical peoples, outlaw states, burdened societies, and benevolent absolutisms. His focus in "The Law of Peoples" is primarily on the foreign policy of liberal peoples towards other societies. The principles of the Law of Peoples that Rawls proposes include:
-
Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples.
-
Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings.
-
Peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them.
-
Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention.
-
Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defense.
-
Peoples are to honor human rights.
-
Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war.
-
Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime.
Central to Rawls's argument is the idea that these principles are sufficient for regulating the interactions between peoples in the international sphere. He argues that once all societies are well-ordered, either liberal or decent, there would be no significant global injustices that require principles of distributive justice similar to those he proposed for domestic societies (like the Difference Principle).
Rawls defines a "people" not simply as a state, but as a moral agent with certain characteristics, including a shared culture, a sense of moral nature, and a commitment to a just or decent political order. He distinguishes this concept of "peoples" from the traditional concept of states, which he views as potentially pursuing their interests in ways that can lead to war and injustice. By focusing on peoples, Rawls seeks to move away from a purely state-centric view of international relations.
John Rawls, a key figure in 20th-century political philosophy.
The Distinction Between Domestic and Global Justice
A fundamental aspect of Rawls's position is his assertion that the principles of justice that apply domestically are distinct from those that apply internationally. For domestic justice, Rawls argues for principles that ensure basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the Difference Principle, which permits social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. These principles are derived from an original position where individuals are the primary subjects.
However, when he moves to the international sphere, Rawls argues that principles of distributive justice like the Difference Principle do not apply globally. His reasoning is that the primary causes of wealth and inequality between nations are internal to societies themselves, such as their political culture, institutions, and the diligence of their people, rather than external factors or an unjust global basic structure. Therefore, the duty of assistance is primarily aimed at helping burdened societies establish just or decent institutions, not at ensuring a global redistribution of wealth to achieve economic equality between peoples.
The Strongest Objection: The Cosmopolitan Challenge
The most prominent and compelling objection to Rawls's position that the primary subject of global justice must be peoples rather than individual persons comes from cosmopolitan theorists. Cosmopolitanism, in the context of global justice, is the view that all human beings are members of a single moral community, and that our moral obligations extend to all individuals globally, regardless of their nationality, citizenship, or any other group affiliation. Cosmopolitans argue that justice is fundamentally about the fair treatment of individuals, and therefore, any theory of global justice must take individuals as its primary concern.
Cosmopolitan critics argue that Rawls's decision to focus on "peoples" in "The Law of Peoples" is a departure from the individualistic foundations of his domestic theory of justice and fails to adequately address the moral claims of individuals on a global scale. They contend that the current global order, with its interconnected economic, political, and social structures, constitutes a "global basic structure" that has profound effects on the life chances of individuals worldwide. If such a global basic structure exists, then, by Rawls's own logic in his domestic theory, principles of justice should apply to this structure to ensure fairness to all individuals affected by it.
Arguments from Cosmopolitan Critics
Failure to Account for Global Inequalities
A major line of criticism is that Rawls's framework, by not demanding global distributive justice, fails to adequately address the vast inequalities in wealth and opportunity that exist between individuals in different countries. Cosmopolitans like Thomas Pogge argue that these inequalities are not solely the result of internal factors within societies but are also shaped by the existing global institutional order, which may perpetuate disadvantage for individuals in poorer nations. They contend that a just global order would require principles that ensure a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities among all individuals worldwide.
Thomas Pogge, a prominent critic of Rawls's approach to global justice.
The Moral Arbitrariness of Nationality
Cosmopolitans emphasize the moral arbitrariness of nationality or citizenship. They argue that being born in a particular country, with its associated level of wealth, resources, and opportunities, is a matter of brute luck. From a moral standpoint, they argue, this arbitrary fact should not determine an individual's fundamental entitlements or their access to basic goods necessary for a decent life. A theory of global justice, according to cosmopolitans, should mitigate the effects of this arbitrary factor by ensuring that all individuals have a baseline level of well-being and opportunity.
Inconsistency with the Original Position Logic
Critics also point to a perceived inconsistency between the role of the original position in Rawls's domestic theory and its role in "The Law of Peoples." In the domestic case, the veil of ignorance prevents parties from knowing their individual characteristics, leading to principles that protect fundamental individual interests. Cosmopolitans argue that if the veil of ignorance were applied consistently at the global level, preventing parties from knowing which society they belong to, the representatives would choose principles that ensure a more egalitarian distribution of resources and opportunities among individuals worldwide, similar to the Difference Principle.
Here is a table summarizing the key differences between Rawls's focus on peoples and the cosmopolitan focus on individuals in global justice:
| Feature | Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" (Peoples as Primary Subjects) | Cosmopolitanism (Individuals as Primary Subjects) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Subject of Justice | Peoples (understood as moral agents, not just states) | Individual Human Beings |
| Scope of Justice | Primarily focused on interactions between well-ordered peoples in a Society of Peoples | Applies to all individuals globally, regardless of nationality or state affiliation |
| Basis for Obligations | Duties and principles governing the relationships between peoples | Moral worth and rights of individuals globally |
| Approach to Global Inequality | Duty of assistance to help burdened societies become well-ordered; less emphasis on global redistribution of wealth | Often advocates for global distributive justice to address inequalities between individuals in different countries |
| Role of Global Institutions | Institutions should facilitate cooperation between peoples | Global institutions should be assessed based on their impact on individuals and may be subjects of justice themselves |
Moral Significance of the Global Basic Structure
Cosmopolitans argue that the existence of a global basic structure, comprised of international laws, institutions (like the WTO, IMF, etc.), and economic practices, necessitates principles of justice that apply to this structure and regulate its effects on individuals globally. They argue that this structure is not neutral but can generate or exacerbate inequalities, and thus is a proper subject for global distributive justice.
Why the Cosmopolitan Objection is Potent
The cosmopolitan objection is particularly strong because it challenges Rawls on grounds that appear consistent with the foundational principles of his own domestic theory – the moral equality of persons and the importance of a just basic structure. By highlighting the moral arbitrariness of nationality and the impact of the global order on individual lives, cosmopolitans argue that a truly just framework cannot stop at the borders of "peoples" but must extend to all individuals.
Rawls's defenders argue that his focus on peoples is a form of "realistic utopianism," aiming for achievable principles that liberal and decent societies could reasonably accept. They suggest that demanding extensive global redistribution might be politically unfeasible and could undermine the responsibility of societies for their own development. However, critics counter that moral principles should guide our aspirations and critiques of the existing order, even if their full realization is challenging.
An overview of Rawls's theory of justice, which provides context for his later work on global justice.
Other Criticisms of "The Law of Peoples"
While the cosmopolitan critique is arguably the strongest, other objections have been raised against Rawls's "The Law of Peoples."
Defining "Peoples"
Some critics question Rawls's definition of "peoples" and whether it is a sufficiently clear or coherent concept to serve as the basic unit of international society. The idea of a unified moral agent with shared sympathies and a common nature might not accurately reflect the diverse and often fractured realities within many states. Critics argue that focusing on "peoples" might downplay internal injustices and the rights of individuals within those societies, particularly in non-liberal ones.
The Scope of the Duty of Assistance
The duty of assistance, while recognized as a positive element of Rawls's theory, has been criticized for being too limited in scope and demanding. Critics argue that merely helping burdened societies to become well-ordered does not go far enough in addressing global poverty and inequality. The duty has a target (establishing just or decent institutions) and a cutoff point, meaning assistance is not required indefinitely or to achieve a certain level of economic well-being relative to other peoples. Cosmopolitans argue that a more robust duty of global distributive justice is required to ensure that all individuals have access to the resources necessary for a life of dignity and opportunity.
Allowance for Decent Hierarchical Peoples
Rawls's inclusion of "decent hierarchical peoples" as members of the Society of Peoples, despite not being liberal democracies, has also drawn criticism. While these societies are not aggressive and respect a basic set of human rights, they may not guarantee the full range of liberties and equal opportunities that liberal societies do. Critics argue that recognizing such societies as "well-ordered" and not requiring them to become liberal is a compromise that undermines the universal applicability of human rights and individual freedoms.
Lack of Robust Human Rights Enforcement
Although Rawls includes the observance of human rights as one of the principles of the Law of Peoples, his framework has been criticized for lacking a robust mechanism for enforcing these rights internationally. The emphasis on non-intervention might, in some cases, conflict with the need to protect individuals from severe human rights violations within their own societies.
Conclusion
John Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" offers a significant contribution to the discourse on global justice, proposing a framework based on the interactions of peoples. His distinction between domestic and international justice, and his emphasis on a society of well-ordered peoples guided by principles like non-intervention and a duty of assistance, provide a distinct perspective. However, this framework faces substantial criticism, with the most compelling objection coming from cosmopolitan theorists.
The cosmopolitan critique highlights the moral imperative to focus on individuals globally, arguing that the arbitrariness of nationality and the impact of the global basic structure necessitate principles of justice that apply to all persons worldwide. This challenges the very foundation of Rawls's approach to international justice and raises fundamental questions about our responsibilities to those beyond our national borders. While Rawls's work has undeniably shaped the debate on global justice, the cosmopolitan challenge continues to press for a more individual-centric and potentially more demanding account of our global obligations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the core idea of John Rawls's "The Law of Peoples"?
The core idea of Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" is to outline principles of international law and conduct that can be accepted by both liberal and decent non-liberal societies, forming a stable and just Society of Peoples. He posits that "peoples," rather than individual persons or states in the traditional sense, are the primary subjects of international justice.
How does Rawls's approach to global justice differ from his domestic theory of justice?
In his domestic theory, "Justice as Fairness," Rawls focuses on individuals and argues for principles of distributive justice (including the Difference Principle) to regulate inequalities within a society's basic structure. In contrast, "The Law of Peoples" focuses on "peoples" and does not extend principles of domestic distributive justice to the global level. The international principles are primarily focused on political relations, human rights, and a duty of assistance rather than global economic redistribution.
Who are the main critics of Rawls's "The Law of Peoples"?
The main critics of Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" are often cosmopolitan theorists, such as Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz, who argue that justice should apply to individuals globally and that Rawls's focus on peoples fails to adequately address global inequalities and the moral claims of individuals.
What is the "duty of assistance" in "The Law of Peoples"?
The duty of assistance is a principle in Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" that requires well-ordered peoples to help "burdened societies" – those whose historical, social, and economic circumstances make it difficult for them to achieve a just or decent political and social regime. The goal is to help these societies become well-ordered, not to equalize wealth between all peoples.
Why do cosmopolitans argue that justice should be about individuals globally?
Cosmopolitans argue that all individuals have equal moral worth and that their basic rights and entitlements should not be limited by arbitrary factors like their nationality or citizenship. They contend that a just global order must prioritize the well-being and opportunities of all individuals worldwide, and that the existing global basic structure necessitates principles of justice that apply to individuals.
References
understandingsociety.blogspot.com
Last updated April 22, 2025