In this paper, I challenge Joshua Cohen’s denial of the existence of a human right to democracy, using for that purpose arguments presented by Cohen himself in other occasions. In a first section, I explain five contradictions in which I believe Cohen incurs with respect to his previous works. In a second section, I explain two conclusions that I believe can be derived from this development: first, that the right of peoples to self-determination does not impede the existence of a (...) human right to democracy, and second, that this reasoning is not only applicable to the domestic order, but also to global decision-making. (shrink)

In a recent article Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane defend the view that one of the necessary conditions for the legitimacy of global governance institutions such as the WTO and the IMF is that they respect basic human rights. I certainly agree that setting the minimal threshold of moral acceptability any lower would be entirely unreasonable. But, unfortunately, the view that global governance institutions have human rights obligations is far from uncontroversial. These institutions themselves go to great lengths to deny (...) such a claim. Their official stance finds strong normative support in the state-centric conception of human rights that dominates both normative debates about human rights and current human rights practice. In this article I challenge some of the normative assumptions behind the state-centric conception in order to defend a pluralist conception that ascribes human rights obligations not only to states but also to non-state actors such as global governance institutions. After briefly analyzing some of the proposals currently under discussion about how to legally entrench the obligation to respect human rights in those institutions, I will defend the feasibility of those proposals against the objection that their implementation is incompatible with the current state-system and thus it would require the creation of a world state. (shrink)

Is democracy a human right? There is a growing consensus within international legal and political practice that the answer is “Yes.” However, some philosophers doubt that we should see democracy as a human right. In this paper I respond to the most systematic challenge presented so far, which was recently offered by Joshua Cohen. His challenge is directed to the view that democracy is a human right, not to the view that democracy is part of what justice demands. It is (...) instructive because it forces us to consider important questions about the nature and justification of human rights, including the putative human right to democracy. There is a tendency to see every claim of justice as a human right, and Cohen presses us to face the risk that this slip may occur in the case of democracy. Thus my aim is not simply to refute Cohen’s arguments but to engage the questions he forcefully and helpfully puts on the table. I start in section 2 by analyzing Cohen’s account of human rights. In section 3 I defend the human right to democracy against his challenge. I conclude in section 4 by articulating some reasons for the claim that democracy is a human right that mobilize and elaborate on some of Cohen’s own key premises. (shrink)

En este trabajo me propongo analizar algunos de los argumentos de John Rawls en contra de un principio de diferencia internacional, tal como fueron presentados en Un derecho de gentes. Sostengo que estos argumentos son inconsistentes con el principio de diferencia doméstico. Si los aceptamos, entonces tendremos que afrontar el dilema de o bien tener que aceptar dicho principio distributivo en ambos ámbitos (el doméstico y el internacional) o bien tener que rechazarlo por completo. También sostengo que las posibles objeciones (...) de Rawls a esta crítica se basan en la dudosa premisa empírica de que los países son exclusivamente responsables de su propio fracaso. In this paper I will analyze John Rawls's claims against an international difference principle as presented in The Law of Peoples. I argue that these claims are inconsistent with the difference principle itself. If we accept them, then we will face the dilemma of either having to endorse this principle both in the domestic and the international domains or having to reject it completely. I also defend the view that Rawls's possible reply to this objection relies on the dubious empirical premise that countries are blameworthy for their own failure. (shrink)

Cet article est la traduction française de l’introduction du livre d’Ayelet Shachar, «The Puzzle of Birthright Citizenship», avec la permission de l’éditeur, tirée de The Birthright Lottery : Citizenship and Global Inequality, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.1-18. © 2009 President and Fellows of Harvard College. Traduction de Martin Provencher.This paper is the French translation of Ayelet Shachar’s introduction, «The Puzzle of Birthright Citizenship», digitally reproduced by permission of the publisher from The Birthright Lottery : Citizenship and Global Inequality, Cambridge, (...) Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp.1-18. © 2009 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Translation by Martin Provencher. (shrink)

Issues relating to diversity and pluralism continue to permeate both social and political discourse. Of particular contemporary importance and relevance are those issues raised when the demands associated with forms of pluralism clash with those of the liberal state. These forms of pluralism can be divided into two subcategories: thin and thick pluralism. Thin pluralism refers to forms of pluralism that can be accommodated by the existing liberal framework, whereas thick pluralism challenges this liberal framework. -/- This thesis is an (...) examination of four forms of political association that may be able to accommodate and support the demands of pluralism. These four models are Rawls’ political liberalism, Crowder’s value pluralism, Rorty’s post-foundational liberalism, and Mouffe’s radical democratic project. What unites these four forms of political association is their capacity to avoid the exclusionary effects of a form of liberalism that I, following Gaus, refer to as Enlightenment liberalism. As the name suggests, this conception of liberalism is anchored in the Enlightenment, and in particular with what may be considered as the Enlightenment view of reason. As such, therefore, Enlightenment liberalism is both universal and perfectionist. In this context, I argue that Enlightenment liberalism is a species of what Berlin refers to as ‘moral monism’. -/- These four forms of political association are ordered in such a way as to chart an intellectual trajectory. Rawls and Crowder are both situated firmly within the liberal tradition, whereas Rorty and Mouffe move beyond this, and embrace a form of post-foundational politics. It is in this trajectory that the second theme of this thesis emerges. This is centred on a paradox: in order to avoid the exclusionary effect of Enlightenment liberalism and embrace a form of political association that meets the demands of pluralism and diversity, the models examined still promote autonomy as the dominant virtue. (shrink)

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its subsequent backlash serve as a case-study to raise ethical concerns both about the characterization of contemporary western liberal democracy as a political theory and a prevailing religious extremism acting as a legislative power within governments; Developing and reflecting on these issues this study will attempt to show a need to evaluate the moral principles attributed to modern political systems and the governmental delineation of power over individuals within a society. Applying Rawlsian concepts, (...) this study will show that laws such as the RFRA are representative of weak and superficial democracies that in most cases are actually centres of power, funded by corporations and organisations in direct conflict with liberal principles. (shrink)

Recent decades have seen sustained theoretical interest in how a cosmopolitan legal order could be created in a manner consistent with the liberal human rights ideals and democratic principles it is supposed to realize. I argue that this “democratic cosmopolitan” account of the genesis of cosmopolitan law faces at least two dilemmas. Both concern the role that “learning processes” play in its explanation of how a genuine cosmopolitan legal order can emerge from a global transformation in the meaning of sovereignty (...) and citizenship. The first dilemma is the theory’s reliance on underdeveloped sociological claims about the nature of democratic political processes, while the second concerns its one-sided analysis of how global trade and interdependence might produce a kind of “cosmopolitan learning.” In light of these issues, I propose that cosmopolitan theorists think beyond democracy as an ideal that should strictly guide the creation of a cosmopolitan legal order. (shrink)

A teoria da Justiça Social sofreu uma revolução ao longo dos três últimos decénios do século xx: discussões intensas levaram à formação de um rico conjunto de concepções acerca das exigências de Justiça ao nível da Nação. O presente artigo, porém, interroga-se sobretudo sobre a questão de saber até que ponto a resposta correcta, ou, pelo menos, a mais plausível, à questão acerca do que seja uma Nação Justa pode ser directamente transposta para o nível de uma organização, prìvada ou (...) pública, de modo a igualmente se poder responder à pergunta sobre o que seja uma Empresa Justa. Mais ainda, o autor procura também saber até que ponto aquilo que se defina ser uma Empresa Justa pode ser extrapolado à escala planetária de modo a se dar igualmente resposta à pergunta sobre o que seja um Mundo Justo. The theory of Social Justice has undergone a revolution during the last three decades of the 20 th century: intense discussions led to the creation of a rich set of concepts about the requirements of Justice at the level of Nation. This paper, however, raises questions mainly about the topic of getting to know to what extent the correct answer - or at least the more plausible one - to the question about what a Just Nation is, can be directly transposed to the organizational level, be it private or public, so that one can equally answer the question about what a Just Enterprise is. Moreover, the author also seeks to know to what extent that which may be defined as a Just Enterprise can be extrapolated to a planetary scale, in order to give an answer to the question about what a Just World is. (shrink)

Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls set out different versions of the social contract theory. In this dissertation, these different versions are treated as iterative accounts within an on-going meta-conversation. To facilitate this conversation, a generic social contract is developed that sets out a uniform way to look at the different versions of the social contract. The generic social contract highlights specific features of the contract process for comparison by creating a set of questions that are posed to each theorist. (...) This conversation reveals a series of progressive choices regarding the values and standards incorporated into the moral and political institutions designed to bring about social order. Taken as a whole, the different versions are subsumed under a social contract paradigm that reinterprets the social contract as a diagnostic tool that goes back and forth between assessing problematic moral and political situations and the societal institutions that manage them. The social contract paradigm offers a technique of continuous inquiry that permits renegotiation of the social contract in light of progressive refinement of the demands placed upon moral and political institutions. (shrink)

This case study analyzes the Fair Trade coffee label "Café Feminino" (as well as Fair Trade more generally) from the perspective of different theories of distributive justice. Its purpose is to serve as a learning tool for students in business ethics courses.

Dada la polaridad entre las teorías "legitimistas" (Weber) e "ilegitimistas" (Arendt) respecto de la violencia en la arena política, en este artículo se explora el aporte de Paul Ricoeur en torno al tema. Puesto que para este autor lo político es la realización de la intención ética, primero se abordará la dimensión ética y moral de la violencia. Después se ingresará en el dominio propiamente político donde Ricoeur defiende una dialéctica "asimétrica" entre los argumentos "ilegitimistas" y "legitimistas" en la cual (...) los primeros adquieren razonabilidad dentro de un concepto "amplio" de violencia próximo al de Arendt. Por último, se abordará la dimensión temporal de la violencia presente en la memoria colectiva y en la historia. Se concluirá con un balance de los méritos y de las cuestiones parcialmente irresueltas en la obra de Ricoeur. Given the polarity between the "legitimist" (Weber) and the "illegitimist" (Arendt) theories of violence in the political field, I will explore the philosophical contributions of Paul Ricoeur to this issue. Since the political field is for the author the accomplishment of the ethical intention, I will first explore the ethical and moral dimension of violence. Secondly, I will enter in the proper political field where we will see Ricoeur defends an "asymmetrical" dialectic between the "legitimist" and "illegitimist" arguments in which the former acquire reasonability within a "broad" concept of violence akin to Arendt's. Thirdly, I will approach the temporal dimension of violence as it appears in collective memory and in history. I will conclude with an account of the merits and partially unresolved questions within Ricoeur's work. (shrink)