The document discusses the complex nature of global justice and its theoretical frameworks, highlighting the moral obligations between individuals and states in addressing inequalities. It contrasts two conceptions of global justice: the cosmopolitan view, which advocates for universal moral duties, and the political view, which emphasizes justice in the context of state sovereignty and institutional obligations. Thomas Nagel's perspective on global justice is particularly noted for its critique of how moral obligations operate at different levels, underscoring the challenges in achieving fair global governance.

1. THE PROBLEM OF GLOBAL
JUSTICE
Name: Benish Mahajan
Course: MA Political Science (2nd
year)
Subject: Global Justice and South
Examination Roll no.: 1708416

2. CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Problems Related to Global Justice
• Two Conceptions of Global Justice
• Nagel’s Political Conception of Justice
• Objection
• Conclusion
• References

3. INTRODUCTION
Justice is most fundamental and integral part in political theory for governing every
society. The study about the theory of justice has been concerned with what we owe
one another and in regards to what obligations we might have to treat each other
fairly over a number of distributive and recognitional matters. Although this notion
has several understandings, for example, it has been understood in a utilitarian way
where a just society is one that tries to increase the overall quality of life for its
citizens and as for a political libertarian, a just society that one that allows it’s
citizens to be maximally free. Also, we can regard the conception of justice as a just
behavior and treatment based in what is morally right and fair. To respect the idea
of basic human rights can also be considered as justice. Therefore, justice is one of
the most important social, ethical, and moral principles we deal with every day.
Contemporary political philosophers when paying their attention to the theory of
justice had almost focused exclusively from criminal law to the market society, but
in the last two decades they have marked extension to the global sphere on matters
such as just conduct in war, others have arose in context of globalization, economic
integration and potentially catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and standards
that define the most basic human rights. In other words, the international
requirements of justice include standards that govern the justification and the
standards that define the most basic human rights.
In general terms, a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice
on a global scale is about and first task is about identifying what we should count as
important problems of global justice, putting forward the solutions to each identified
problem, identifying the responsibilities in addressing the identified problem and so
on. In addition to this, the theories of global justice aims to help us understand our
world better and about the responsibilities. While some theorists ambition is to
purely theorize the understanding, others also hope to provide a proper detailed
analysis which can be beneficial in making practical policies related to global justice
matters. Global justice is based on a moral understanding as well as implementation
that is applying the principle of global justice and value that or we can call the
institutional understanding of global justice. John Rawls’s Law of Peoples was an
especially important work and greatly stimulated thinking about different models of
global justice (Rawls 1999). In this important work, Rawls makes clear that the
scope of justice in his opinion is confined to individual societies. According to him,

4. countries only have a limited humanitarian obligations to less well-off nations; those
lucky enough to be born in prosperous national circumstances need not to share their
gains with others. In studying the notion of justice at global level two things are
considered to be essential that is the relationship between justice and sovereignty
and equality as a demand of justice.

5. PROBLEMS RELATED TO GLOBAL JUSTICE
In order to understand the problems related to global justice, firstly we need to focus
on the relationship between justice and sovereignty, and secondly about the scope
and limits of equality as a demand of justice. Both of these are important issues that
are related and both have crucial importance in determining whether we can form a
ideal global justice.
➢ The issue of justice and sovereignty was formulated by Hobbes. He was of
the view that actual justice can be achieved by moral reasoning and only
within a sovereign state. Therefore, he based political legitimacy and the
principles of justice as a collective self-interest rather than on any moral
premises. According to him, in a society where there is absence of sovereign
power individuals are led by legitimate motive of self-preservation, hoping
for conditions of peace and justice but they cannot pursue justice by
themselves. This position is more problematic for those who do not consider
Hobbes belief of collective self-interest as the foundation of justice.
➢ The issue of justice and equality posed by one of the controversies between
Rawls and his critics. According to him, liberal requirements of justice
includes a strong component of equality among the citizens of the country that
implies to a political demand which applies to the basic structure of a unified
nation-state. It does not apply to the non-political choices of individuals living
in such a society nor does it apply to the relations between one society and
another, or between the members of different societies. Egalitarian justice is
a requirement on the internal political, economic, and social structure of
nation-states.

6. TWO CONCEPTIONS OF GLOBAL JUSTICE
Globally, the suffering of the humanity seems to create a major moral problem.
Thomas Nagel described different ways in posing the problem where he
distinguishes two kinds of duties. Humanitarian duties hold in virtue of the absolute
level of need of the disadvantaged people.
❖ Cosmopolitan View: Here the demand of justice arises from an equal
concern that we owe in principle to all our fellow human beings and the
institutions where the standards of justice can be easily applied. For example,
since all the individuals share same land therefore they do not require any
global sovereignty, fulfillment of duties. This view holds the division of the
world into sovereign states to be unfortunate hurdle and sees global inequality
as equal. Here the members of the respective nation-states had special
responsibilities toward one another that were only confined to them. Some
kind of moral understanding is present here. if they are treating their culture
and religion people equally why not at a global level have same behavior with
other individual. There is a need to be morally consistent at both local and
global level. They argue that it maybe very different in absence of global
sovereign. At the end they take Hobbesian understanding.
❖ Political View: According to this conception, justice is a political value and
essentially a virtue of social institutions. It is also about the existence of states
is what gives justice its application by putting citizens in special relations to
one another. From these relationships, associative duties and therefore
obligations are created. This rejects “monism” about the principles instead
holding the “dualist” view that “the correct regulative principle for a thing
depends on the nature of that thing” (John Rawls, A theory of Justice). This
results in allowing him to resist the charge that consistency requires him to
take individuals as moral units of concern in both domestic and global justice.
Also, the political view sees obligations of justice as nested within a strongly
differentiated system of moral obligations with basic humanitarian duties and
then certain kinds of associative duties to ones fellow citizens.

7. NAGEL’S POLITICAL CONCEPTION OF GLOBAL
JUSTICE
Although, all the conditions do not rely upon the associative duties. For instance the
duty to protect negative rights is universal. Nagel’s positive conception that is
“socioeconomic justice is different”. This depends upon the positive rights that we
do not have against all other persons which arises only because we are joined
together with certain others in a political society under strong centralized control. In
this predicament, some morally arbitrary inequalities come to stand in severe need
of justification because we become our wills and that are engaged in political society
as joint authors of the coercively imposed system of our society. By these laws we
are able to privilege some and hinder others and society makes a response for them.
Clearly, these laws are simply based on pure coercion.
This fulfillment that the wills of members of society be engaged with one another
allows Nagel to distinguish between the kind of coercive control to which non-
members are subject to for instance, through immigration policy. In the latter case,
no acceptance of the coercion is demanded because the policy is not justified in their
name. Thus, while the states aim may not be to violate the negative rights of others
and ought to be concerned about their absolute fulfillment of the well-being, the
requirements of equal treatment in principles of justice, including political equality,
equality of opportunity, and distributive justice only arise in the context of a state.
According to this view, moral obligation is based of different levels. Political
obligation is a kind of obligation that is surrounded by a larger context of universal
obligations. Therefore, we can say that everyone may have right to live in a society
but we do not have an obligation to live in a just society with everyone.

8. OBJECTIONS
Let us notice some objections regarding Nagel’s implications on political
conceptions that tend to be conservative. There was a need to strengthen the global
institutions in order to protect the human right and to provide global public goods
and humanitarian aims in all different directions. These ambitions may want us to
have more institutions, but the institutions that exists currently such as global trade
do not as of yet amount to a global basic structure or a global coercive state in the
sense that is related to the trigger distributive justice.
Later, he responds to these objections and regards that his approach makes a lot of
distinction between sovereign states and global institutions. Firstly, he notes that
these different kinds of global institutions may have different relevance so that a
continuous theory where some kinds of international organizations create an
additional obligations of justice. He doubts this because he does not think that
defenders of this approach can point to some particular characteristic in virtue of
new obligations arise.
Also, he notes that his approach suggests a dilemma where he regards in needing
more international institutions to protect human rights but these would create new
obligations that some member states would not accept. Example: EU and the
International Criminal Court. Therefore, he concludes that sovereignty precedes
legitimacy and so we may create unjust institutions to pass through a period of global
injustice in order to later create just ones.

9. CONCLUSION
By the above discussion about the problem that arise by conceptualization of the
idea of global justice we realize that Nagel holds the citizens of a nation are bound
together. All of them share the obligation to obey their country’s laws and if in case
they live in a democracy, they all share same responsibility for enacting these laws.
The major important point of purpose is that Rawls believes that this moral principle
against the arbitrary inequalities is not a principle of universal application. Rather,
in this theory the objection to these inequalities gets a foothold because of the
societal context. We can also see some contrasts as described by Nagel between his
approach and Rawls; firstly, Rawls is not concerned with global justice but with the
foreign policy of liberal states whereas in Nagel’s view, the units of moral concern
are the people rather than Rawls’s peoples. Finally, Nagel argues that universal
human rights set constraints on sovereign power.

10. REFERENCES
Books
1. The Problem of Global Justice by Thomas Nagel
2. The Law of Peoples by John Rawls
Websites
1. www.wikipedia.com
2. www.politicalnotmetaphysical.com