RESEARCH INTERESTS
Research Interests:
• Political philosophy
• Social philosophy
• Ethics
Most theories of global justice have focused on either cosmopolitan duties from the global rich to the global poor or statist justifications of the current status quo. Almost every account of global justice acknowledges the empirical fact of global inequality and poverty, the normative debate is thus framed largely in terms of what kind of duties wealthier countries and their citizens have towards poorer states. While there is a consensus that there is indeed global inequality and poverty, there is more disagreement about what individual nation-states and their citizens can do to alleviate poverty. Furthermore, economic and socio-political developments in recent decades have caused a shift in global inequalities and the bargaining power that poorer or developing countries used to have, but global institutions and trading frameworks have not adjusted to those realities. My research project has three aims: firstly, I will argue that there is a need for normative debates on issues of global justice to recognize the structural nature of the causes of global poverty and inequality. I will argue that carefully examining the role of global institutions in framing the problem of global poverty shows that the question how global poverty is understood and how it should be alleviated cannot be separated from questions of global justice. Once we recognize that wealthier countries not only have had a role to play in legitimizing and developing the current international framework, but also in actively shaping it in various ways largely in self-interest, the normative questions over global justice take on a different role. The debate over global justice should be: should individual nation-states be held responsible for developing better global institutions, and what is the role of individual citizens in seeking such reform? Following Aaron James, I will argue that global trade is a social practice that should be of normative concern, but that James' account underplays the importance of global institutions and legal frameworks both in legitimizing trading frameworks and propagating particular models of development. This also has implications for developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa, which have been attempting to play a bigger role in developing global institutions for economic development. The final part of the project aims to argue that individual citizens of wealthier states and richer individuals of developing countries have an individual duty to express concern about global trade agreements, put political pressure on their domestic governments to avoid unfair terms of trade and overly protectionist trade measures. This is derived from the two broader principles of due care and the principle of fair distribution. I will argue that the justification of these principles on the individual and state level is intertwined, as individuals (at least in democratic states) can be held individually responsible for consenting to and/or voting for particular foreign policies and trading measures.
• Political philosophy
• Social philosophy
• Ethics
Most theories of global justice have focused on either cosmopolitan duties from the global rich to the global poor or statist justifications of the current status quo. Almost every account of global justice acknowledges the empirical fact of global inequality and poverty, the normative debate is thus framed largely in terms of what kind of duties wealthier countries and their citizens have towards poorer states. While there is a consensus that there is indeed global inequality and poverty, there is more disagreement about what individual nation-states and their citizens can do to alleviate poverty. Furthermore, economic and socio-political developments in recent decades have caused a shift in global inequalities and the bargaining power that poorer or developing countries used to have, but global institutions and trading frameworks have not adjusted to those realities. My research project has three aims: firstly, I will argue that there is a need for normative debates on issues of global justice to recognize the structural nature of the causes of global poverty and inequality. I will argue that carefully examining the role of global institutions in framing the problem of global poverty shows that the question how global poverty is understood and how it should be alleviated cannot be separated from questions of global justice. Once we recognize that wealthier countries not only have had a role to play in legitimizing and developing the current international framework, but also in actively shaping it in various ways largely in self-interest, the normative questions over global justice take on a different role. The debate over global justice should be: should individual nation-states be held responsible for developing better global institutions, and what is the role of individual citizens in seeking such reform? Following Aaron James, I will argue that global trade is a social practice that should be of normative concern, but that James' account underplays the importance of global institutions and legal frameworks both in legitimizing trading frameworks and propagating particular models of development. This also has implications for developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa, which have been attempting to play a bigger role in developing global institutions for economic development. The final part of the project aims to argue that individual citizens of wealthier states and richer individuals of developing countries have an individual duty to express concern about global trade agreements, put political pressure on their domestic governments to avoid unfair terms of trade and overly protectionist trade measures. This is derived from the two broader principles of due care and the principle of fair distribution. I will argue that the justification of these principles on the individual and state level is intertwined, as individuals (at least in democratic states) can be held individually responsible for consenting to and/or voting for particular foreign policies and trading measures.