A-Global-Justice System

Before international law there is justice, before any law, there it should be justice for humans, particularly in the face of widespread global inequality that casts an iron grip on the completion of just behaviour. But it is complicated these days: the fighting in Libya has brought forth the myriad problems when one considers to positively influence the outcome of this specific ‘war”. But all conflicts of international repercusions affect us and maybe we should start thinking really hard before opening our big traps and start yapping about this or that.

Enter the president in chief of the US that has said that Gaddafi must go (where?). If Gaddafi defeats the “rebels” that would entail invasion (intervention) and he-Gaddafi- looses it means nothing. If the blood letting continues should the US push the Qaddafis out? (dont forget the sanguine son, he sounds fearless, well on, TV)

However the question is what to do know now. Is this real question to be consistent with a moral and just private/public worldview and/or system (legal is not so relevant)?. The Arab league has requested (under which authority?) a no fly zone (a privileged Libyan air volume where Libyan planes cant fly). Of course this request can be any of the multiple artiluges that the international-‘community’ uses to throw their arsses to the wildberries (a chilean saying), that is, to make NATO, UN or US to actually “intervene”. Of course the Sunday ilk (a word choice of atheists), pundits, commentators and else demand intervention, now, as a question of basic righteousness and humanity. Why doesnt the Arab “league’ enforce the no fly zone.??

But there is not a framework for intervention or nonintervention. Unless we start talking about a system to enact ‘global justice” we are doomed to paralysis contemplating ongoing crises in the Arab world and elsewhere, which seem inevitable, anyways.

Richard Falk addressed this question in an Aljazeera article (in english, which i mentioned before). Today I came across “The problem of global justice”, published in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2005) by, who else?: the unmissable Thomas Nagel, of what is it like to be a bat fame. The writing may inspire you to think beyond Sunday morning in a detailed manner.

(my personal opinion is that TN confuses the argument at the end: if you want to argue for intervention, to avoid and mitigate further pain and death, and achieve a lesser evil (say vloume of death people), just say so. )


“We do not live in a just world. This may be the least controversial claim one could make in political theory. But it is much less clear what, if anything, justice on a world scale might mean, or what the hope for justice should lead us to want in the domain of international or global institutions, and in the policies of states that are in a position to affect the world order”

“We are unlikely to see the spread of global justice in the long run unless we first create strong supranational institutions that do not aim at justice but that pursue common interests and reflect the inequalities of bargaining power among existing states. The question is whether these conditions can be realized by units established through voluntary agreement rather than by involuntary imposition.
The path of conquest, responsible for so much of the scope of sovereign authority in the past, is no longer an option on a large scale. Other historical developments would have to create the illegitimate concentrations of power that can nurture demands for legitimacy, and provide them with something that is both worth taking over and not too easy to break up.”My conclusion, though it presupposes a conception of justice that Hobbes did not accept, is Hobbesian in spirit: the path from anarchy to justice must go through injustice.”

“It is often unclear whether, for a given problem, international anarchy is preferable to international injustice. But if we accept the political conception, the global scope of justice will expand only through developments that first increase the injustice of the world by introducing effective but illegitimate institutions to which the standards of justice apply, standards by which we may hope they will eventually be transformed. An example, perhaps, of the cunning of history”

A quickie on Hobbes from helpme.com : “Of Thomas Hobbes’ 19 laws of nature, the first three, which add consecutively up to his concept of justice, are by far the most influential and important, with the ultimate goal being an escape from the state of nature. The first law states that we should seek peace, and if we cannot attain it, to use the full force of war. Directly building off of the first law’s mandate to seek peace is the second law that states that we should lay down our rights of nature and form social contracts, if others are willing to as well. From this springs forth the concept of the covenant, in which men can transfer their rights of nature between each other and which forms the basis of moral obligation. With the enactment of each of these laws, which act as impediments towards the full use of an individual’s right of nature, an individual will trade a piece of their right of nature in order to promote cooperation between others. According to Hobbes, these two are not enough to keep human kind from betraying one another. There needs to be another layer of control. This is where the third law comes in to fully form the concept of justice. The third law simply states that men need to perform their valid covenants, which becomes Hobbes’ definition of justice. From this, injustice is defined as not performing your valid covenants. As can be seen by this, with one law building off of another, it is quite clear that Hobbes put great effort into creating a full representation of the world in order to support his political doctrine. Thus, in order to understand Hobbes’ reasoning for his concept of justice, this paper will elaborate on how Hobbes’ laws of nature are rules that every human being should follow in order to give them the best chance of living well as well as investigating the full requirements of justice and Hobbes’ claim that there is neither injustice nor justice in a state of nature


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: