Global Justice and the Motivation to Give

Cosmopolitans,statists and liberal nationalists disagree over the relevance of regulating substantive inequalities at the global level.This paper aims to resolve the dispute among these three schools of thought.I show firstly that cosmopolitans,statists,and liberal nationalists all aim to motivate people to give in support of distributive justice at the global level.However,cosmopolitans lack a substantive theory of how to develop sufficient motivation to give globally.Secondly,the statists’account of the motivation to give is deficient because it fails to recognise the motivational force of a common national identity among people.Thirdly,Miller’s account is more plausible than the statists’but fails to facilitate a dynamic process whereby people’s national identities could be extended to the global level in order to support the cosmopolitan project.This needs to be supplemented by the statists’understanding of democratic process—one which incorporates the principles of Habermas’s communicative action as a mechanism for developing social solidarity among people.I endorse an account that recognises the motivational force of national identity and the possibility of extending it beyond nation state through democratic participation at the global level.

Measuring(Transnational)Organized Crime as an Indicator of Global Justice

Organized crime impacts on societies,and it is one of the main threats to global justice.Assessment of the presence and activities of organized crime is therefore crucial for the design of effective policies and actions.Several methodological approaches have been proposed to address the two main challenges implied by this effort:(1)the complexity of defining what organized crime is;and(2)the collection and generation of reliable data to estimate it.Moreover,organized crime groups increasingly engage in illicit activities that extend beyond their traditional territories and the borders of a single state.This expansion is facilitated by the ever-growing economic and social connections among people and countries.This poses serious threats to countries and their citizens by generating direct and indirect economic damage,affecting social structures,and hindering the development and stability of states.This paper discusses the latest methodological advances in measurement of OC within a country or a region.It then describes a strategy for assessing OC presence based on the estimation of the transnational illicit markets and the role of countries in those illicit networks.Examples from the current research studies are provided.

Global Distributive Justice and Education

Global distributive justice is directly connected to the increased inequality in the world. This inequality, which includes the huge inequality of education opportunities, is usually understood as unjust. There are two main approaches to this problem： cosmopolitan and statist. Looking from the cosmopolitan point of view, this kind of injustice is related predominantly with the socio-economic relationships among the individuals on the planet. Just the opposite is the view of the so-called statists, who claim that a more just world is not a world of persons who are equal among themselves, but rather a world of nation states which are able to achieve a more just society within their borders and, consequently, a more just and egalitarian global society as well.

Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice:Theories,Concepts,Principles and Indicators

The paper focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of global justice and discusses theories,concepts,evaluative principles,and methodologies related to the study of global justice.In this paper,we seek to clarify how to conceptualize global justice,how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories,and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice.Global justice is a broad concept that is composed of multi-level and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities.A coherent and integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore much needed in order to address some of the basic and important questions under study.The paper seeks to synthesize the multiple theories and conceptions of global justice that exist in the academic discourse and literature into three main theoretical approaches to global justice-rights based,good based,and virtue based.These three approaches are a good sample of and reflect well the strengths of the different theoretical,intellectual and cultural traditions at play in the study of global justice.From this perspective,the synthesis of the three approaches is meant to provide us with a coherent theoretical framework that serves as the normative basis and justifies the selection of indicators for measurement.

What We Owe to Each Other: On Global Climate Justice

The key to global climate justice is how to define or distribute greenhouse-gas （sometimes abbreviated to GHG） emissions rights in different countries. Throe questions are to be answered： First, what does global climate justice distribute？ Second, on what principle does it distribute？ Third, what is the moral foundation of the principle？ The thesis analyzes the peculiarity of GHG emissions permit as a global public resource and its consequent ethical issues. On the ground of egalitarianism, it proves the basic principle of distributing GHG emissions permit required by global climate justice, and the basic ethical ground of global climate justice accepted by international community.

Immigration and Liberal Egalitarianism

My principal objective in this paper is to examine what position liberal egalitarians should take regarding the issue of immigration. Given that liberal egalitarians grant central importance to individual autonomy and the moral equality of all persons, their rejection of restrictive immigration policies appears to follow from these central normative commitments. Liberal egalitarians such as Joseph Carens and Phillip Cole have argued that those who are committed to individual autonomy and moral equality should advocate for an open borders position in immigration. I argue that it is a serious mistake for liberal egalitarians to advocate open national borders and that borders should instead be strategically regulated to reduce global economic inequalities through immigration policies systematically integrated into development programs for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Open borders would create an open market for immigration slots to choice countries of destination, which out of practical necessity would have to delimit the number of new immigrants. It is well known in migration studies that those who are more educated, young, and have more resources are more likely to migrate than the very young, the elderly, the infirm, and the poorest individuals. Those left behind in developing countries suffer serious negative consequences from the emigration of the most highly educated, capable, and talented individuals in their society. I then argue that liberal egalitarians should grant particular moral consideration to the world＇s poorest and most vulnerable and that immigration policies strategically designed to prioritize their needs are actually more consistent with the dual commitments of individual autonomy and moral equality than an open borders position. I propose three principles of global justice that are consistent with liberal egalitarianism that should guide transnational moral obligations. I end the paper by arguing that two of these principles can be used to justify restricted immigration policies that would enable developed countries to partially discharge some of their moral obligations to developing countries while enhancing the autonomy of the world＇s most vulnerable people.