Justice in a Globalized World

(image at http://pej.ca/images/foelogo.jpg)

*As this is a casual blog post, I didn't include my sources. If anyone feels that they would like to assert their copyright, please leave a comment.

Thinkers from the Enlightenment thru to the present day have postulated many ideas on what justice is. They attempt to identify perfectly just societies and the institutions present in these hypothetical cases. In his book The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen has noted that such 'transcendental idealism' is too detached from the practice of justice to be useful, and I agree with this viewpoint. As Sen notes, justice in practice involves reducing manifest injustice and choosing between imperfect alternatives. It is irrelevant to consider 'airy fairy' conceptions of perfectly just worlds that are impossible to achieve. We must remember that justice is ultimately practice, not theory, and efforts should be focused on overcoming practical difficulties.

Incommensurate Conceptions of Justice

John Rawls has defined "justice as fairness". I have no training in political science and assume that this refers to justice as 'congruence': where individuals obtain fair returns for their deeds and misdeeds. It would thus be unjust to penalize those with no culpability for a heinous act. We must note that fairness is not a single concept but a portmanteau term for various notions of fairness. These can start from very different premises and arrive at conflicting conclusions. Sen presents a cogent analogy:

[Paraphrased]

Anne, Bob and Carla are arguing about who should get a flute. Anne claims the flute on the ground that she is the only one who can play it (the others do not deny it), and it would be unjust to the flute to the only one who can actually play it.

[Anne's argument is based on utility]

Bob claims the flute by highlighting that he is the poorest among the three and has no toys of his own. The flute would give him something to play with and the other two concede that they are well supplied with other engaging amenities.

[Bob's argument is based on the equitable distribution of wealth]

Carla points out that she should get the flute because she has made the flute after many months of labor (the others confirm this) and "just then", she complains, "these expropriators cam along to try to grab the flute away from me".

[Carla's argument is based on labor and ownership]

... The general point here is that it is not easy to brush aside these claims based on human fulfillment, addressing poverty or labor entitlement. The different resolutions all have serious arguments to support them and we may not be able to identify, without some arbitrariness, the one that must invariably prevail... [Because] the three arguments each point to a different type of impartial and non-arbitrary reason.

Even though each argument is cogent in-itself, it is clear that some selection process must occur for all three positions cannot stand simultaneously. In light of this, Sen is right to say that justice requires rational scrutiny. To rely on didactic authority is a fallacy, begs the question of whether the authority - in whatever form - has made a fair ruling in the first place. Discussion also promotes impartial decisions by examining how vested interests of certain individuals could be mistaken about 'fairness'.

There are two categories of agents that may be involved in public debate. Rational deliberation necessarily involves 'membership entitlement' where members have the right to a fair hearing to their interests and positions. To do otherwise would be to treat some members as more equal than others and contravene many notions of fair and equal rights. Debate could also include 'enlightenment relevance' from individuals beyond the group, where those who have pertinent viewpoints that may enrich the discussion are given a voice. If only the former is present, 'closed impartiality' results and only the members influence decisions on justice. While this protects the polity's moral autonomy, it may also prevent it from realizing the flaws of its moral paradigm and result in what Sen terms 'parochial bias'.

'Open impartiality' where 'enlightenment relevance' is a feature potentially highlights any flaw in a polity's internal reasoning about justice. In order to claim objectivity, any conclusion has to consider alternative arguments and establish its moral supremacy. The problem is deciding who has 'enlightenment relevance'. Depending on the intellectual climate, the invitation of 'enlightened' individuals may be nothing more than the invitation of strangers sharing the same views. While it may alter the form of the polity's paradigm, it does not suggest an alternative and potentially better paradigm. For example, it is questionable if the British House of Lords considers an Iranian fundamentalist cleric to have any 'enlightenment relevance' in secular politics and justice. In practice, 'open impartiality' is selective.

The hypothetical example above also highlights the problem in considering incommensurate belief systems. Even if an impartial outsider is given a voice in a polity's internal deliberations, the outsider's reasoning may be based on a completely separate system of ethics that cannot be reconciled with the polity. Going back to the analogy of the flute and the three children, different conflicting notions of justice may be equally plausible; yet choosing between them is extremely difficult. This example demonstrates that 'open impartiality' can indeed be an open dilemma with no solution in sight. Consensus can only occur if the outsider(s) with 'enlightenment relevance' and the polity have a sufficient number of shared values to guide their discussions, such as a religious paradigm or utilitarian standpoint. Debates then centre on the application of these common principles rather than its merits.

Globalization & Open Impartiality

Despite its flaws, I believe 'open impartiality' is essential in our globalised world because domestic political decisions can have severe global implications that affect peoples beyond a country's borders. Consider the Arab-Israeli war of Yom Kippur of 1973, where Egypt and Syria invaded Israel, as part of their on-going campaign to rectify the unjust persecution and exile of Palestinian communities. It demonstrates that the 'theft of Palestine' - an affair within Palestinian/Israeli borders - provoked regional intervention. As the tide turned against Arab forces, the Arab-controlled Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) placed an oil embargo on many Western countries and because oil is such an essential factor of production, the OPEC embargo triggered the Oil Crisis and global recession of the 1970's.

From this case, we can see that the steps taken by a group of countries (OPEC and the Arab forces) to rectify the injustice over Palestine resulted in unjust economic consequences for uninvolved, third party countries. They were penalized without culpability. Such tit-for-tat 'justice' demonstrates that justice is no longer a localised issue but a globalised one. Note that the issue here isn't how we can create an idealistic 'perfectly just' society but rather one of eliminating unjust situations and actions. In the context of international relations, the United Nations is an example of an institution intended to address economic and political injustices such as poverty, human rights violations and environmental issues. It is an example of 'open impartiality'. Whether it fulfills its function remains debatable but it indicates that for the first time in human history, we recognize that justice in various forms is not limited by territorial boundaries and, instead, requires collective action.

But what does collective action entail? Recent history has demonstrated that collective action is far from perfect and could indeed be counter-productive in the pursuit of justice. Aside from Israel, the UN apparatus has failed to check the incursions of military superpowers in Afghanistan, Vietnam and, most recently, Iraq. In many societies across the world, we frown upon abject poverty and serfdom but find that the status quo persists – the first world life lives of general affluence while the third world grovels in dust. I believe that this is caused by an outdated notion of national sovereignty and ‘independence’.

National Autonomy in a Globalised World

Sovereignty could be defined as a nation’s right to govern its own affairs. This may have been sufficient in the past but such a parochial viewpoint is fast becoming obsolete in a globalized world. Whereas independence was the focus of the post-colonial era, interdependence now occupies the global spotlight. The concept became more relevant as the 20^th Century progressed, starting with the US Great Depression and culminating in the entangling alliances during the cold war period – events which shaped the world around the. Nations were so intricately linked that unilateral or bilateral consequences had global ramifications.

Consider the Cuban missile crisis. What was initially an agreement between Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro brought created a conflict with the USA and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. While it is within the rights of the respective states to enter into ‘defensive’ agreements with one another, the situation pulled other peripheral states into the conflict because they were tied into the NATO and Warsaw military alliances that took a common stance towards collective defense. These alliances were intended to countervail the purported aggression of the other and maintained this purpose by pledging collective action if any of its members were attacked.

During the Cuban missile crisis (1962), President Kennedy imposed a naval ‘quarantine’ – a de facto blockade without the declaration of war that a blockade usually implies – to forcibly halt the shipment of nuclear missiles to Cuba. In response, Nikita Khrushchev warned that American “piratical acts” would lead to dire consequences. This dragged the superpowers’ respective alliances into the contention because these pacts had to maintain the principle of collective defense in order to preserve its value as a deterrent against aggression even though they were not participants in the crisis. Moreover, the crisis negotiations were held over and above the heads of the NATO and Warsaw alliances – meaning these nations were not substantially empowered to diffuse the situation but would nevertheless bear the consequences of nuclear war. This is in direct contravention of their theoretical ‘membership entitlement’ in their respective alliances and demonstrates how unilateral actions and bilateral dynamics can inflict great damage upon related third-party states: ‘parochial sovereignty’ can unjustly penalize innocent parties who have no culpability.

Temporal Justice: Climate Change

The international consequences of a nation’s internal decisions are not a new phenomenon. The Great Depression, the Oil Shock of the ‘70s and other catastrophic events had roots in unilateral policy decisions. As the 21^st Century begins, a new issue has come to the fore: climate change. Unlike previous issues, climate change does not have roots in a single nation but in many. It becomes difficult to settle because there is no clear party to blame. Furthermore, previous conflicts occurred over space but climate change occurs over a temporal axis. It is not us who will bear the brunt of this change but those that come after, compounding the issue of justice across time.

This temporal dimension introduces a new form of justice. It is manifestly unfair for future generations to be penalized without culpability for our ecological mismanagement, especially when they – as yet too young to be politically active – do not have a voice or vote in politics. The future state of justice thus depends on our present corrective measures. As shown at the Copenhagen 2010 Summit, multilateral cooperation is not forthcoming. No single country can be blamed for climate change, and a case of international ‘diffused responsibility’ becomes prevalent in the minds of leaders and peoples. As carbon emissions – the leading cause of climate change – are a by-product of fossil fuels that power every industrial economy, a reduction in emissions entails a reduction in energy expenditure and lower economic production. All nations will suffer the effects of climate change[1], yet a strong, unanimous ‘public good’ to correct this eludes us – why?

I believe the answer lies in the lack of trust and responsibility. Time magazine notes:

Activists accuse other developed nations, including those in the E.U., of also backing away from tough emissions cuts while casting blame on fast-growing developing nations for not doing their part.

Again, we see that diffused responsibility has resulted in an almost childish blame-game. Nations seek a just amount of commitment from each other but a quantitative definition of this commitment can be a slippery slope to nowhere. This haggling about just quantities ironically impedes the implementation of emission reductions because things do not go far beyond paper and talk.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that these quantities have been determined. The next step is their implementation. As optimistic as this sounds, another major hurdle needs to be addressed. Because emissions are so intricately linked to economic wealth, the global economic status quo can only be preserved by a multilateral reduction of emissions in proportionately commensurate amounts. This would require a great deal of trust between nations lest

“If we passed a bill that the rest of the world didn't follow," observed Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "then Uncle Sam could soon become Uncle Sucker and export all of our jobs to China."

The same could be said of the Developing nations: ‘greener alterations’ to their economy could put their economies in a less favorable position unless the first-world follows suit to a proportionate extent. The high stakes makes trust and cooperation a precarious proposition and the cautious approach is to wait for someone else to do it first. A legally binding agreement is one way to approach this issue. The New York Times:

Henriette Bersee, environment counselor at the Royal Netherlands Embassy, said in a statement:

"While preventing free ridership, it [a legally binding treaty] provides a long term international framework for international cooperation and public and private investments in a low carbon future," she wrote. "One can argue that the enforcement of international treaties has its limits, but that does not mean that in our world international obligations have no meaning. They have."

Treaty enforcement, short of military responses, would entail economic sanctions. Unfortunately, this is a blunt instrument. Sanctions in the form of tariffs, quotas or currency devaluations will affect the offending country’s economy. To preserve it export position or balance of trade, the latter will correspondingly severe retaliatory sanctions on the initiating countries and this tit-for-tat action will lead to collective detriment in a world of global trade. Such ‘Beggar Thy Neighbor’ economics are clearly unsustainable and unless a more feasible form of enforcement arises, legally binding agreements provide no solution:

Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"We may need to put off decisions on legally binding until the dynamics change, and there is both more agreement on the substance and more trust between the major countries in the negotiations,"

Conclusion

The preceding arguments have shown that the principle of total sovereignty is a self-refuting position in a globalised world because the sovereign acts of one nation can and has led to detrimental effects on another, thereby unjustly violating the latter’s sovereignty. History has demonstrated that international engagement is necessary to solve problems in a globalised world because we are so intricately interdependent on each other. It may be said that global problems require global solutions, and these all hinge upon the intractable issue of just arrangements – arrangements that have become more elusive as the 21^st Century begins. Justice in climate change rests on both the just allocation of corrective responsibility and the onus of the current generation to prevent an unjust environmental affliction on future ones. Yes, we do need trust and commitment. Even though no single nation can, should or even feels obliged to carry the weight of the world, we must always remember that we make up the world. The world as it is and as it will be rests entirely in our hands.

---

[1] The UNFCC website lists more frequent storms, floods and disruptions in water & food supplies as examples, among others. It also notes that the developed world contributes most of the pollution while the developing world bears the brunt because it has fewer resources to cope with the consequences.