Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.

This article examines where Kant stands on the question of the redistribution of wealth and income both nationally and globally. Kant is rightly seen as a radical reformer of the world order from a political standpoint seeking a republican, federative worldwide system; can he also be seen as wanting to bring about an equally dramatic shift from an economic perspective? To answer this question we have first of all to address the question of whether he is an egalitarian or an (...) inegalitarian at the national level. Certainly there are certain social and material inequalities within a civil society Kant is prepared to accept and there are some he is not. This would imply that he would affirm certain inequalities at an international level and that there are others upon which he would recommend action. Thus the question arises as to whether or not it is appropriate for Kantians to regard the current enormous inequalities in wealth and income between individuals living in different parts of the globe as scandalous and in need of change. The paper throughout relates the problem of distributive justice within the state to the problem of distributive justice amongst states, arguing that this approach is warranted by Kant's own method. Particular attention is paid to how Kant's own approach to political philosophy may be deployed to underpin a change to a distinctive type of international distributive justice. (shrink)

Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition.

In a new interpretation, Garrett Wallace Brown considers Kant's cosmopolitan thought as a form of international constitutional jurisprudence that requires minimal legal demands. He explores and defends topics such as cosmopolitan law, cosmopolitan right, the laws of hospitality, a Kantian federation of states, a cosmopolitan epistemology of culture and a possible normative basis for a Kantian form of global distributive justice.

The central problem that I address in this dissertation is itself a political one. I consider the implications of taking Immanuel Kant's thought seriously with respect to international relations. And I examine the stakes of taking on a Kantian approach to understanding international politics. ;Kant's political philosophy is foundational to modern international relations theory and is subject to substantial revival within the discipline. The first movement of this study thus offers a critical evaluation of how Kant's thought has historically functioned (...) in this field of inquiry. My initial findings are that both the ground and new vision that his texts allegedly offer are founded in highly problematic readings. In this respect I insist on the need to review Kant's political writings within the deeper context of his larger philosophical texts. Taking up this task myself, I discover that Kant's political thought does not support the aims or conventions of traditional international relations theory whatsoever. I submit that his work effectively argues against the legitimacy of the discipline. But, I do not, consequently, suggest that Kant's work has nothing to say to the study of international politics. On the contrary, I contend that he simply offers a very different approach, one that understands international relations itself as being a theoretical practice. I thus go on to explore the kind of international theory Kant himself offers. And I find this to be a fundamentally critical enterprise. But, in this regard, I also discover that Kant's representation of international politics does not meet the standards of the critical approach he himself requires. Finally, I consider whether or not it is possible to develop a successful approach to international politics that is in fact commensurate with Kant's commitment to critique. Here I find glimpses of possibility in the works of certain contemporary theorists of international relations. Still, I ultimately conclude that a Kantian-critical approach to international politics must give up the world or the international as its bases of analysis and, rather, take up politics, minus global limits, as its initial ground. (shrink)

Global Ethics, along with its companion volume Global Justice, will aid in the study of global justice and global ethical issues with significant global dimensions. Some of those issues directly concern what individuals, countries, and other associations ought to do in response to various global problems, such as poverty, population growth, and climate change. Others concern the concepts that are commonly used to discuss such issues, such as "development" and "human rights." And still others concern the legitimacy of various phenomena (...) that structure the global scene, such as national borders, the institutions of national sovereignty and self-determination, and attitudes such as nationalism and patriotism. In recent decades, literature on such issues has started to build up in the Western philosophical tradition. Until now, though, no up-to-date sample of this literature has been available to students and other interested parties. These two books, companion volumes sold separately, fill this gap by providing a sample of the best recent work on these themes. (shrink)

This close examination of Kant's writings shows him to be both a conservative partisan of the international status quo of sovereign states and yet also the inspiration for radical, global reform for democracy and universal rights. The focus on Kant's concept of justice provides insight into the contemporary evolution of liberal internationalism, connecting Kant's legacy to the post-Cold War policy agenda and the moral dilemmas that currently confront political leaders and the societies they represent. Franceschet forces a reconsideration of Kant (...) and a broadening of concern from democratic peace to cosmopolitan justice. (shrink)