On the Relationship between Global Justice and Global Democracy: A Three-Layered View

IF 1.3 3区哲学 Q3 ETHICS

Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1017/S0892679422000338

Eva Erman

{"title":"On the Relationship between Global Justice and Global Democracy: A Three-Layered View","authors":"Eva Erman","doi":"10.1017/S0892679422000338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How should we understand the relationship between global justice and global democracy? One popular view is captured by the aphorism “No global justice without global democracy.” According to Dryzek and Tanasoca's reading of this aphorism, a particular form of deliberative global democracy is seen as the way to specify and justify what global justice is and requires in various contexts. Taking its point of departure in a criticism of this proposal, this essay analyzes how to best understand the relationship between global justice and global democracy. The aim is not to offer a first-order substantial account of this relationship, but to theorize the normative boundary conditions for such an account; that is, the conditions that any plausible theory should respect. These conditions take the form of what is here called a “three-layered view,” which is specified through three claims. It is argued, first, that global democracy is best seen as a partial normative ideal; second, that global democracy must be grounded in fundamental principles of justice; and third, that global democracy is an ideal through which applied principles of distributive justice are formulated and justified in light of reasonable disagreement about what justice requires.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"46 1","pages":"321 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679422000338","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract How should we understand the relationship between global justice and global democracy? One popular view is captured by the aphorism “No global justice without global democracy.” According to Dryzek and Tanasoca's reading of this aphorism, a particular form of deliberative global democracy is seen as the way to specify and justify what global justice is and requires in various contexts. Taking its point of departure in a criticism of this proposal, this essay analyzes how to best understand the relationship between global justice and global democracy. The aim is not to offer a first-order substantial account of this relationship, but to theorize the normative boundary conditions for such an account; that is, the conditions that any plausible theory should respect. These conditions take the form of what is here called a “three-layered view,” which is specified through three claims. It is argued, first, that global democracy is best seen as a partial normative ideal; second, that global democracy must be grounded in fundamental principles of justice; and third, that global democracy is an ideal through which applied principles of distributive justice are formulated and justified in light of reasonable disagreement about what justice requires.

查看原文本刊更多论文

论全球正义与全球民主的关系:一个三层次的视角

我们应该如何理解全球正义与全球民主的关系?“没有全球民主就没有全球正义”这句格言抓住了一个流行的观点。根据Dryzek和Tanasoca对这句格言的解读，一种特殊形式的协商式全球民主被视为一种明确和证明全球正义是什么以及在各种情况下需要什么的方式。本文以批评这一提议为出发点，分析如何最好地理解全球正义与全球民主之间的关系。目的不是提供这种关系的一阶实质性解释，而是将这种解释的规范边界条件理论化;也就是说，任何貌似合理的理论都应该尊重这些条件。这些条件以这里所谓的“三层视图”的形式出现，通过三个声明来具体说明。有人认为，首先，最好将全球民主视为一种部分规范的理想;第二，全球民主必须以正义的基本原则为基础;第三，全球民主是一种理想，通过这种理想，分配正义的应用原则得以制定，并在对正义要求的合理分歧的基础上得到证明。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ethics & International Affairs Multiple-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量