Human rights have been a significantly controversial public discourse over the last few centuries. Until recent actions by the United Nations in the universal declaration of human rights in the general assembly in 1948, retrospective to the two world wars we have had, we very obscurely established the terms of human rights. Through the colonialism era until the second world war, discriminations and oppressions of few identities and ethnicities were considered general to certain extent, as there was an ambiguity in defining freedom, liberty and equality. Only a few decades ago, xenophobia and racism were widely recognized as a wrongdoing as there have been a growing awareness of freedom and liberty. Even in modern society there are evidence of civil wars, famines, natural disasters, oppressive society and corruptive governments. The international organizations such as UN and NGO are working to protect human rights and to prevent possible economic and political disadvantages of those states from imperialistic and Euro-centric ideologies. Finding principles to justifiably resolve disputes between states is undeniably difficult. Some assertions are too skeptical for us to sufficiently protect expected minimal human rights, whereas some are way too utopian to apply to reality. John Rawls is a theorist whom proposed few ideas about global distributive justice and human rights in his book ‘the laws of peoples’. Some theorists such as Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz on the other hand criticize his ideas with various reasons. This essay will present Rawls perspectives on global distributive justice and other theorists’ skepticism and criticism about his viewpoints.
Rawls’ book of ‘the laws of peoples’ consists of three main parts; first part is about reasonable liberal peoples. He defines the conception of ‘peoples’ contrasted to the conception of ‘states’ which contains moral ideas. He stated that in establishing what is known as the social norms of today’s society, it did not start from the individuals nor from the states. Also, he said that there are three basic features of liberal peoples: “a reasonably just constitutional democratic government that serves their fundamental interests; citizens united by what Mill called “common sympathies”, and finally, a moral nature. The first is institutional, the second is cultural and the third requires a firm attachment to a political (moral) conception of right and justice.”
Secondly, Rawls explained about the original position which is an imaginary method of structuring global norms. Rawls stated that in liberal societies, original position is used to constitute the laws of peoples. This is a second original position which represents each of liberal societies. Like the preceding, second point is assumed to be reasonable, liberal and fair. Representatives are assumed to be rational and they contemplate the contents of the laws of peoples. Furthermore, such deliberations are only proceeded with the views of the right reasons, and chosen from the liberal concepts of the laws of peoples principles. And the representatives do not understand economic standards, population, power and resources of whom they represent. Second point of the original position, the liberal peoples’ essential interest gets crystalized by the political justice and reasonable conceptions. According to, Rawls, they will try their maximum efforts to protect and to secure the safety of their political autonomy, civil liberty. Also, they will demand for adequate respect and fair chances. He quotes Kant’s ‘Perceptual Peace (1795)’ and his idea of ‘foedus pacificum’, to explain that the laws of people will prevent from having a central government which acts as the world government. Rawls asserts that the world government will be the world’s dictator or a vulnerable empire that is tainted with frequent civil movements and resistance. The following stated principles of the laws of peoples that Rawls stated in the original positions are as follows;
1. Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples.
2. Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings.
3. Peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them.
4. Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention.
5. Peoples have the right of self-defence but no right to instigate war for reasons other than self-defence.
6. Peoples are to honor human rights.
7. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the con- duct of war.
8. Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime. (reference)
These are the systematized essential interests of the second original positions that Rawls outlined. As stated, the following eight principles of the laws of peoples that Rawls organized does assure minimal human rights such as the security from massacres, freedom of conscience, autonomy, and freedom from slavery, however it does not guarantee wide range of global distribution in wealth like how a lot of liberalists around the world argue. Furthermore, those eight principles are only limited to the liberal societies which are restricted to only the peoples of the liberal societies. Rawls claimed that we have to tolerate non-liberal society as much as possible. He structured the societies into five distinctive types which he uniquely defined them as the ‘decent consultation hierarchy’ and the people as ‘decent hierarchical peoples’. The five domestic societies that he structured were; liberal society, non-liberal decent society, outlaw states, societies burdened by unfavorable conditions, and benevolent absolutism. According to Rawls, the society secures the minimum human rights at least to the peoples of the society through sufficiently decent consultation hierarchy or some other forms of social structure. Rawls suggested that it can only be carried out under a condition of either no war unless for self-defense means or for the security of human rights.
This in fact, gets quite evident when he portrayed the example of the ideological Islamic nation ‘Kazanistan’. Kazanistan is an absolutely idealistic state that respects human rights and not hostile towards any other states. In Kazanistan, Islam is preferred but not forced, and citizens with other religions are respected to have same general civil rights as the Muslims. Other religions and religious organizations encourage their own culture to be prosperous, and to take an active part in the whole civil society. However, only the Muslims can in positioned for high political hierarchy, governmental regime and judicial organizations. Non-Muslims have to belong in their group with a representative representing their voice. And they have to raise their voice on opposing such obscure social structure through hierarchical consultation process. Rawls categorized this society being imperfect however, determined to be a decent society along with it being liberal and well-organized society. In addition, outlaw states that do not obey the laws of peoples, societies burdened by unfavorable conditions that are likely to be disadvantaged to form a well-ordered society due to its’ economic, political, social and historical circumstances, benevolent absolutism states that guarantees the safety of the individual human rights but rejecting the members to be granted significant roles in making important political decisions, all are not categorized as the well-ordered society which all do not apply the laws of peoples.
In the third part of the law of peoples, non-ideal theory, it explains about outlaw states and how to handle a society with relatively unfavorable conditions. Prior to this, Rawls developed the law of peoples for organized society in other words, for a liberal society and a decent society. In this part of the book, he analyzed about how well-ordered peoples should treat non-well-ordered peoples. Realistically speaking, he expressed that all society is not a well-ordered society, the application of the law of peoples is only for those liberal democratic peoples and decent hierarchical peoples. Ultimately, Rawls’ ‘the law of peoples’ divide into two big sections. First structure is a liberal and decent society that follows the law of peoples and securing world peace. Second structure is an outlaw state that has no will in following the law of peoples, aiming for an unfavorable society that has no capability in following the law of peoples, considering about how liberal well-ordered society and decent society will treat them. Of these, the second structure of the non-ideal theory will subdivide into righteous wars and duty of support and provision. Well-ordered societies have the duties to support unfavorable societies. However, the duty of assistance is not for the redistribution of wealth like the cosmopolitans are claiming. According to Rawls, the purpose for support is for well-ordered states to cooperate and to integrate the unfavorable societies into theirs in the future. Therefore the assistance is limited only until all societies have basic well-ordered society.
Compared to the law of peoples for global justice and the theory of domestic society’s justice, Thomas Pogge criticizes with the following three inconsistencies. Firstly, there are no ground principles for justice that targets for the whole world (international law is not binding – no force), secondly, constructed with actors of the peoples not individuals, and lastly points out the structural difference that composes international social structure. Pogge criticizes that Rawls did not establish a certain global standard which conforms with the social justice principles. According to Pogge, Rawls does suggest two solutions due to such issues, however they are both unreasonable and inadequate. Rawls refers to Kant’s argument in this case to point out the danger of having a world government. That having a strong central world government may cause dictatorship and other possible problems. However, Pogge indicates that this is rather ambiguous as we see historical examples of the recent twenty first century of Europe and the United States (they act as the leaders of the world but it is not yet in a dictatorship state). Also, Pogge argues that even if we do accept a danger of central government, it still secures the basic human rights and freedom, providing more equal opportunities than Rawls’ the law of peoples. Rawls point out that in peoples’ societies, there are liberal societies that could embrace and accept non-liberal decent society, and those peoples can deny normative principles of basic freedom and liberty. However, Pogge articulates that there are no reasons for liberal societies to accept non-liberal decent societies. There are no reasons for liberal societies to unilaterally yield to another non-liberal societies, and certainly it is not necessary to consider about decent societies in the long future. Rawls determined that the decent societies are lacking morality relatively compared to liberal societies wishing all humanity to live under liberal systemic regime as stated by Pogge.
Seconly, Pogge criticizes that Rawls advocated normative individualism but rejecting its conception in global society. In Rawls’ theory of global justice, the universal unit is ‘peoples’. Pogge indicates the problem of constituting actors of peoples instead of individuals in the original position, therefore it could not effectively reflect the interest of the individuals. Pogge asserts that there is a groundless inconsistency when it is compared to justice of domestic society, and consequently on this basis, Rawls makes unequal conclusion about the global justice. Lastly, Pogge critiques about the structural unbalance of Rawls’ theory of domestic and global societies. In the domestic society, the representatives are there to adopt public standards that are fair and equal to everyone in the society for justice, and this is to lead the systemic structure to develop, adopt to possible historical, cultural and economic changes and circumstances that might emerge in the future. In contrast to this, representatives in the international society can directly advocate specific rules and principles. Rawls’ former conceptions on domestic society does not consider fundamental characteristics of basic social structure, therefore has better flexibility.