scholarly journals A Teoria de Justiça global como alternativa à Teoria de Justiça rawlsiana em contextos de dominação múltipla

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Pogge

No contexto multifacetado atual, há atores que se beneficiam do design estrutural mundial ao mesmo passo em que a diversos outros são impostas barreiras que dificultam o acesso às riquezas – as quais, defende-se, em havendo uma arquitetura distribucional global voltada à equidade, poderiam ser melhor alocadas, de maneira a beneficiar um maior número de indivíduos. Nesse passo, o presente artigo, utilizando-se, principalmente, de método de pesquisa bibliográfico, possui o objetivo de demonstrar que a visão rawlsiana, ainda que cabível em sociedades herméticas, é inadequada para um mundo submerso em desigualdades econômicas altamente maculadas pela forma de acumulação histórica, predatória e usurpadora, imposta pelos países mais desenvolvidos economicamente em relação aos pobres globais. Assim, busca demonstrar, por uma análise de conjunto e com referência na teoria de justiça global consoante avançada por Thomas Pogge, a maneira pela qual a estruturação global ainda hoje prejudica, seletivamente – i.e., principalmente por meio dos privilégios internacionais sobre recursos e sobre empréstimos -, países, mantendo-os – ou, mais frequentemente, suas populações - em condição de pobreza.

scholarly journals Discípulos de Rawls em busca de uma concepção cosmopolita de justiça distributiva internacional

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (37) ◽  
pp. 59-73
Author(s):  
Gabriel Cepaluni ◽  
Feliciano de Sá Guimarães
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Thomas Pogge

Neste artigo, argumentamos que alguns "discípulos" de John Rawls, refletindo sobre princípios de justiça internacional, apresentam uma posição mais consistente com o espírito da obra Uma teoria da Justiça do que seu próprio autor. Autores como Charles Beitz e Thomas Pogge defendem mecanismos de justiça distributiva internacional mais condizentes com o cosmopolitismo do "princípio da diferença" da obra Uma teoria da Justiça do que qualquer outro esforço que Rawls faz nesse sentido em sua obra posterior, mais voltada para as questões internacionais: O Direito dos Povos. Mais especificamente, sustentamos que Pogge e Beitz desenvolveram argumentos (a relativização do princípio da soberania absoluta dos Estados e a transferência internacional de recursos naturais) mais sólidos para transportar o "princípio da diferença" para o cenário internacional do que a proposta rawlsiana de "dever de assistência", encontrada em O Direito dos Povos. Assim, demonstramos que os discípulos são mais fiéis ao espírito cosmopolita para o plano internacional do que Rawls por conta de três razões: a crença desses autores em uma comunidade global de concidadãos dentro de uma estrutura institucional internacional; a idéia segundo a qual a produção global de recursos coletivos deve ser redistribuída a partir de um princípio distributivo denso; e, por fim, uma redistribuição que somente pode ser justa se exigir reformas morais das instituições internacionais (Fundo Monetário Internacional, Organização Mundial do Comércio, Banco Mundial, princípio da soberania etc.) no sentido de melhorar as condições de vida dos indivíduos mais pobres de todos os povos do sistema. Este artigo pretende, portanto, discutir o legado mais progressista de autores que, ao inspirarem-se em Rawls, desenvolveram argumentos mais condizentes com o espírito cosmopolita para o plano internacional.

Justice and the Convention on Biological Diversity

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Thomas Pogge
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Natural Habitat ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Social Rules ◽  
Biological Resources ◽  
Thomas Pogge

Justice and the Convention on Biological DiversityDoris Schroeder and Thomas PoggeBenefit sharing as envisaged by the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a relatively new idea in international law. Within the context of non-human biological resources, it aims to guarantee the conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use by ensuring that its custodians are adequately rewarded for its preservation.Prior to the adoption of the CBD, access to biological resources was frequently regarded as a free-for-all. Bioprospectors were able to take resources out of their natural habitat and develop commercial products without sharing benefits with states or local communities. This paper asks how CBD-style benefit-sharing fits into debates of justice. It is argued that the CBD is an example of a set of social rules designed to increase social utility. It is also argued that a common heritage of humankind principle with inbuilt benefit-sharing mechanisms would be preferable to assigning bureaucratic property rights to non-human biological resources. However, as long as the international economic order is characterized by serious distributive injustices, as reflected in the enormous poverty-related death toll in developing countries, any morally acceptable means toward redressing the balance in favor of the disadvantaged has to be welcomed. By legislating for a system of justice-in-exchange covering nonhuman biological resources in preference to a free-for-all situation, the CBD provides a small step forward in redressing the distributive justice balance. It therefore presents just legislation sensitive to the international relations context in the 21st century.

Review of Global Tax Fairness, Thomas Pogge and Krishen Mehta, Editors

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 673-684
Author(s):  
Matthew Weinzierl
Keyword(s):  
Tax Policy ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
Near Term ◽  
Information Gaps ◽  
Tax Fairness

This timely volume (Global Tax Fairness, edited by Thomas Pogge and Krishen Mehta) on the proper taxation of multinational enterprises argues that several feasible, near-term reforms could substantially narrow the scope for tax avoidance by closing information gaps, and it proposes more ambitious, long-term reforms that pursue coordination on the design, not just the enforcement, of tax policy. The editors construct an impassioned normative case that (legal) avoidance violates fairness because its negative effects fall especially hard on the world's poor, but their case could be bolstered by an appeal to the classical benefit-based logic behind the central aim of the reforms they recommend. (JEL D63, F23, H25, H87, K34).

Human Rights and Positive Duties

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rowan Cruft
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Reverse Order ◽  
Global Society ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
World Poverty ◽  
Positive Duties ◽  
Negative Duties ◽  
Just Society ◽  
Policy Proposals

In World Poverty and Human Rights, Thomas Pogge presents a range of attractive policy proposals—limiting the international resource and borrowing privileges, decentralizing sovereignty, and introducing a “global resources dividend”—aimed at remedying the poverty and suffering generated by the global economic order. These proposals could be motivated as a response to positive duties to assist the global poor, or they could be justified on consequentialist grounds as likely to promote collective welfare. Perhaps they could even be justified on virtue-theoretic grounds as proposals that a just or benevolent person would endorse. But Pogge presents them as a response to the violation of negative duties; this makes the need for such remedial policies especially morally urgent—on a par with the obligations of killers to take measures to stop killing.In this essay, I focus on the claim that responsibility for world poverty should be conceived in terms of a violation of negative duties. I follow Pogge in distinguishing two questions (p. 134): What kind of duties (positive or purely negative?) would we be subject to in a just global society where everyone fulfilled their duty and there was no significant risk of injustice? And what kind of duties (positive or purely negative?) do we face given that our global society falls short of the just society?I tackle these questions in reverse order below. I argue, in contrast to Pogge, that positive duties are relevant to our answers to both questions.

scholarly journals A pluralistic approach to global poverty

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
CARL KNIGHT
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Poverty Alleviation ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Global Poverty ◽  
Peter Singer ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
Moral Duties ◽  
Pluralistic Approach ◽  
Personal Ethics

AbstractA large proportion of humankind today lives in avoidable poverty. This article examines whether affluent individuals and governments have moral duties to change this situation. It is maintained that an alternative to the familiar accounts of transdomestic distributive justice and personal ethics put forward by writers such as Peter Singer, John Rawls, and Thomas Pogge is required, since each of these accounts fails to reflect the full range of relevant considerations. A better account would give some weight to overall utility, the condition of the worst off, and individual responsibility. This approach provides robust support to global poverty alleviation.

Alison Jaggar (ed.), Thomas Pogge and His Critics

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-108
Author(s):  
Shmuel Nili
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Pogge

Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and Distributive Justice

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 29-63
Author(s):  
Simon Caney
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Peter Singer ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Thomas Pogge ◽  
The World ◽  
Cosmopolitan Democracy ◽  
Onora O’Neill ◽  
Made In ◽  
Henry Shue

In recent years a powerful case has been made in defence of a system of global governance in which supra-state institutions are accountable directly to the citizens of the world. This political vision- calling for what is commonly termed a ‘cosmopolitan democracy‘- has been defended with considerable imagination by thinkers such as Daniele Archibugi, Richard Falk, David Held, and Tony McGrew. At the same time, a number of powerful arguments have been developed in favour of cosmopolitan principles of distributive justice. Philosophers such as Brian Barry, Charles Beitz, Onora O'Neill, Thomas Pogge, Henry Shue, and Peter Singer have developed formidable arguments against wholly local theories of distributive justice and have argued for cosmopolitan conceptions of distributive justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document