LAW AND JUSTICE IN GLOBALISED WORLD PDF

Preview

Summary

UNIT I:-----INTRODUCTION----MEANING ANDCONCEPT OF GLOBAL JUSTICETHEORETICAL PREPOSITIONS OF GLOBAL JUSTICEREALISMPARTICULARISMNATIONALISMCOSMOPOLITANISMMEANING & SIGNIFICANCE OF GLOBALIZATIONThe term ̳Globalization‘ is wide than the wider; therefore,there are numerous descriptive introductio...

Description

UNIT I: -----INTRODUCTION---MEANING AND CONCEPT OF GLOBAL JUSTICE THEORETICAL PREPOSITIONS OF GLOBAL JUSTICE REALISM PARTICULARISM NATIONALISM COSMOPOLITANISM

MEANING & SIGNIFICANCE OF GLOBALIZATION The term ‗Globalization‘ is wide than the wider; therefore, there are numerous descriptive introductions, which can‘t be mentioned here, so easily. Yet, I‘ll try to compile the most significant and brief versions of authentic sources in coming paras. The word Origin and History for globalization Expand1961, from globalize, which is attested at least from 1953 in various senses; the main modern one, with reference to global economic systems, emerged 1959.

What is Globalization? Meaning, Definition & Description-; 1- The tendency of investment funds and businesses to move beyond Domestic and national markets to other markets around the globe, thereby increasing the interconnectedness of different markets. Globalization has

had the effect of markedly increasing not only international trade, but also cultural exchange. THE INVESTOPEDIA

2- Globalization is the tendency of businesses, technologies, or Philosophies to spread throughout the world, or the process of making this happen. The global economy is sometimes referred to as a globality, characterized as a totally interconnected marketplace, unhampered by time zones or national boundaries. The proliferation of McDonalds restaurants around the world is an example of globalization; the fact that they adapt their menus to suit local tastes is an example of glocalization (also known as internationalization), a combination of globalization and localization. Margaret Rouse Editorial Director The Globalization

SIGNIFICANCE Globalization - something only of concern for international business, trade, diplomacy? Or, something that affects all of us, no matter what our profession or interest? Several months ago, the Wilder Board asked: "What large scale trends or issues exist, which could have very profound consequences for the work of nonprofit organizations, whether local, national, or international?" This Board has always looked ahead strategically; they knew that plans within Wilder take into consideration changes in the population, the rising and falling of specific needs, and so on. In this case, however, they wanted to look beyond the obvious, to larger trends or overarching conditions that might produce the more visible trends that we readily see and understand. Among several nominations of significant, large-scale trends, globalization percolated to the top as an important focus of attention, and we spent time discussing it. So, in a series of blogs, I'll offer my views on what globalization means and what implications it has for us.

One, simple definition of globalization: the increasing integration of societies and economies throughout the world. It means that people move more and more easily across borders, that more money and capital moves across borders, and that freer trade exists.

The International Monetary Fund defined "economic globalization" as: "a historical process, the result of human and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The term also refers to the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders." Thomas Friedman (author of "The World is Flat", "The Lexus and the Olive Tree") asserts that "Globalization has replaced the Cold War as the defining international system." A recent headline in the New York Times strikingly confirmed this assertion. If you remember the 1950s and 1960s, your recollections of the Soviet Union probably include: Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on a podium; the phrase (probably mis-translated) "we will bury you"; the Iron Curtain; the "red menace"; and similar negative concepts. At that time, public service announcements attempted to reassure us by explaining that the "DEW line" would detect the launch of Soviet missiles; it seemed that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at one another, ready for launch. Now, a half century later, the New York Times of April 21 stated: "Pentagon invites Kremlin to link missile systems." Friedman asserts something else that can help us to understand the importance of globalization for all of us. As the Friedman web site states: "Globalization is the integration of capital, technology, and information across national borders, in a way that is creating a single global market and, to some degree, a global village." In The Lexus and the Olive Tree, he frames "the tension between the globalization system and ancient forces of culture, geography, tradition, and community." Jim Steiner, of Lowry Hill and a member of the Wilder Board illustrated how capital flows in today's world and offered examples of how local decision-making is unbounded; companies look to achieve the best possible gains within an international network. It's this blending of the local and global, this creation of the truly global village, that we need to pay attention to. Whether we realize it or not, the forces of globalization affect our personal, civic, and business lives. Decisions we make as voters, investors, leaders, and community members can leverage the forces of globalization, or can passively react to those forces. "Neighborhood" decisionmaking and "world-wide" decision making overlap more than ever before. Globalization has, on the one hand, increased opportunities; it has democratized communication and the way we learn about the world. However, not everyone has received benefits. Globalization has enhanced the situations of many of us, yet some of us may be much worse off as a result of globalization.

CONCEPT OF GLOBAL JUSTICE INTRODUCTION: If you do a literature search on ―global justice‖ you will find that this is a newly prominent expression — there are more books and essays on it in this millennium already than in the preceding one, at least as far as computers can tell. Of course, some of the broad topics currently debated under the heading of ‗global justice‘ have been discussed for centuries, back to the beginnings of civilization. But they were discussed under different labels, such as ‗international justice,‘ ‗international ethics,‘ and ‗the law of nations.‘ And this shift in terminology is quite significant — or so I believe. Obviously, different users of a new expression may have diverse motives and ideas, some of which I may not be familiar with. Thus I must confess to never having read the book — published already in 1977 — entitled No More Plastic Jesus: Global Justice and Christian Lifestyle. As fellow-philosopher Clint Eastwood pronounced so memorably: ―A man‘s got to know his limitations.‖ So I won‘t pretend to speak for everyone, but will rather say a little about the evolving ideas that motivated me to use the expression ―global justice‖ in the titles of my doctoral dissertation, of my first essay in Philosophy & Public Affairs, and of six subsequent publications. We can begin with two distinctions. The first is between two different ways of looking at the events of our social world. On the one hand, we can see such events interactionally: as actions, and effects of actions performed by individual and collective agents. On the other hand, we can see them institutionally: as effects of how our social world is structured — of our laws and conventions, practices and social institutions. These two ways of viewing entail different descriptions and explanations of social phenomena, and they also lead to two different kinds of moral analysis or moral diagnostics.

BRIEF ABOUT THE SUBJECT Contemplating justice on a global scale in today's world can easily be seen as an almost impossible, Don Quixotic venture. When Thomas Hobbes devoted De Cive to exploring the rights of the state and the duties of its subjects, he set the stage for the next three and a half centuries of political philosophy. Focusing on the confrontation between individual and state meant to focus on a person‘s relationship not to particular rulers, but to an

enduring institution that made exclusive claims to the exercise of certain powers within a domain. Almost two centuries after Hobbes, Hegel took it for granted that political theory was merely an effort to comprehend the state as an inherently rational entity. And 150 years later, American philosopher Robert Nozick could write that the ―fundamental question of political philosophy is whether there should be any state at all‖ Two central philosophical questions arise about the state: whether its existence can be justified to its citizens to begin with; and what is a just distribution of goods within it. As far as the first question is concerned, philosophers from Hobbes onwards have focused on rebutting the philosophical anarchist, who rejects the concentrated power of the state as illegitimate. For both sides of the debate, however, the presumption has been that those to whom state power had to be justified were those living within its frontiers. The question of justice too has been much on the agenda since Hobbes, but it gained centrality in the last 50 years, due in part to the rejuvenating effect of John Rawls‘ 1971 Theory of Justice. Again the focus was domestic, at least initially. However, real world changes, grouped together under the label ―globalization,‖ have in recent decades forced philosophers to broaden their focus. In a world in which goods and people cross borders routinely, philosophers have had to consider whether the existence of state power can be justified not just to people living within a given state, but Important preliminaries arise and need to be clarified: What justice: political, cultural, religious, or socio-economic justice? What goals can or should global justice serve? Justice as (Hobbesean) peace, justice as doing no harm,1 justice as equality, justice as reward, justice as welfare (social justice), justice as righteousness (religious-mystical justice), justice as individual agency, utilitarianism justice supplementary to private ethics-to mention but a few. Justice for whom: for individuals, natural persons, legal entities, corporations, communities, groups, nations, states, all sentient beings, the environment, the planet, the universe, God? The issue of global justice promises nothing but an enormous scope of inquiry. This modest effort to offer some reflections on this issue will limit itself to an engagement with the obvious and the urgent. also to people excluded by it (for example, by border controls). At a time when states share the world stage with a network of treaties and global institutions, philosophers have had to consider not just whether the state can be justified to those living under it, but whether the whole global order of multiple states and global institutions can be justified to those living under it. And in a world in which the most salient inequalities are not within states, but among them, philosophers have had to broaden their focus for justice too, asking not only what counts as a just distribution within the state, but also what counts as a just distribution globally.

THEORETICAL JUSTICE

PREPOSITIONS

OF

GLOBAL

Valentini‘s account of global justice comprises two elements: First, a general theory or framework of justice, coercion and freedom; and second, the application of that theory to questions of global justice. Valentini argues that the function of justice is to morally assess instances of coercion; she believes that coercion should be understood more expansively than it hitherto has been, and she advances a conception of ―freedom as independence‖ that draws on elements from both liberal and republican traditions. According to Valentini, thinking about the requirements of global justice within this coercion framework delivers a picture that is distinct from familiar versions of cosmopolitanism and statism, while preserving important insights from both. Valentini takes the liberal idea that the function of justice is to assess coercion as her starting point, but argues that our understanding of what phenomena are to count as coercive – hence as giving rise to concerns of justice – needs to be widened. Coercion should be understood as encompassing all constraints on individual freedom that stand in need of special justification. We should speak of ―interactional coercion‖ (p. 130) whenever one agent, whether an individual or a group, avoidably and foreseeably places a non-trivial constraint on the freedom of some other agent. And we should speak of ―systemic coercion‖ whenever a system of rules, i.e., the rule-governed behavior of individual or group agents, has the foreseeable and avoidable effect of constraining individual freedom. According to Valentini‘s preferred understanding of freedom, an agent‘s freedom may be constrained by either reducing the number or quality of options available to that agent, or by reducing the robustness of their options, i.e., by increasing the extent to which the availability of the options depends on the behavior of some other agent. How does this normative framework apply to questions of global justice? Three implications are particularly important. Firstly, because requirements of justice arise out of a concern for justifying coercion, the content of duties of global justice will depend on how actors in the international arena constrain each other‘s freedom. In a world of self-contained states, noninterference would be the only requirement of global justice, whereas in a fully integrated world, the coercion framework would deliver cosmopolitan conclusions. Secondly, because a network of different relationships of coercion characterizes the international order in its current form, different principles of justice hold between different actors. On the level of interactional coercion between states, for example, states should respect each other as the primary protectors of their citizens‘ individual freedom, giving rise to duties of non-interference and a concern for protecting the conditions of effective state sovereignty.8 On the level of global systemic coercion, comprising the rules and conventions governing finance and trade, adverse impacts on individual freedom, for example through trade

liberalization or financial crises, ought to be minimized, say through enhanced global regulation and fairer bargaining mechanisms within the WTO. And finally, because individuals are responsible for various types of coercion, they are subject to a number of duties of global justice. On the one hand, they share responsibility for global interactional coercion as members of the collective agent of the state. On the other hand, they share responsibility for global systemic coercion as participants in practices such as trade and finance. In a very important sense, the shift from discussions of justice within a single society to discussions of justice on a global scale represents not merely the newest theoretical work in political philosophy. Our perspectives on justice in one society are being transformed as we reflect on three possibilities. First, it might be that the rationales that underlie claims of social justice within the domestic sphere have no application to the global sphere at all, and that the very idea of global justice is, at best, an ideal of a world of many internally just nation-states. Second, perhaps the arguments that support various requirements of social justice within the domestic context can be extended globally. Third, problems arising within the global arena may call for quite different principles of justice than ones that are appropriate for the domestic context. For more detailed discussions of the issues, see the entries under "Current Theoretical Disagreements." Also, to the left are additional special topics that figure within the debates regarding human rights and global justice, but which nonetheless merit some separate discussion because of their additional, independent normative significance.

THEORY OF REALISM

Realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest. Political realism in essence reduces to the political-ethical principle that might is right. The theory has a long history, being evident in Thucydides' Pelopennesian War. It was expanded on by Machiavelli in The Prince, and others such as Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau followed (the theory was given great dramatical portrayed in Shakespeare's Richard III). In the late nineteenth century it underwent a new incarnation in the form of social darwinism, whose

adherents explained social and hence political growth in terms of a struggle in which only the fittest (strongest) cultures or polities would survive. Political realism assumes that interests are to be maintained through the exercise of power, and that the world is characterised by competing power bases. In international politics, most political theorists emphasise the nation state as the relevant agent, whereas Marxists focus on classes. Prior to the French Revolution in which nationalism as a political doctrine truly entered the world's stage, political realism involved the political jurisdictions of ruling dynasties, whilst in the nineteenth century, nationalist sentiments focused realists' attentions on the development of the nation-state, a policy that was later extended to include imperialist ambitions on the part of the major Western powers-Britain and France, and even Belgium, Germany and the United States were influenced by imperialism. Nationalist political realism later extended into geo-political theories, which perceive the world to be divided into supra-national cultures, such as East and West, North and South, Old World and New World, or focusing on the pan-national continental aspirations of Africa, Asia, etc. Whilst the social darwinist branch of political realism may claim that some nations are born to rule over others (being 'fitter' for the purpose, and echoing Aristotle's ruminations on slavery in Book 1 of the The Politics), generally political realists focus on the need or ethic of ensuring that the relevant agent (politician, nation, culture) must ensure its own survival by securing its own needs and interests before it looks to the needs of others. To explore the various shades and implications of the theory, its application to international affairs is examined. Descriptive political realism commonly holds that the international community is characterized by anarchy, since there is no overriding world government that enforces a common code of rules. Whilst this anarchy need not be chaotic, for various member states of the international community may engage in treaties or in trading patterns that generate an order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply beyond the nation's boundaries. Arguably political realism supports Hobbes's view of the state of nature, namely that the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily a-moral. Hobbes asserts that without a presiding government to legislate codes of conduct, no morality or justice can exist: "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice¼ if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men." (Hobbes, Leviat...