Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:12:57.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Theories of Global Justice Be Useful in Humanitarian Response?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

KADRI SIMM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Why is it that humanitarianism and theories of global justice seem to have relatively little engagement with each other? This article discusses some of the reasons for this being the case, and argues that instead of seeing these two fields as separate or adversarial they should be viewed as complementary. The article begins with a brief overview of humanitarianism, in order to argue for the relevance of justice in humanitarianism. The second section focuses on analyzing selected theories of justice— those of Peter Singer, John Kekes, and Thomas Pogge—through a particular lens, that of the question of responsibility for global well-being. The article concludes by arguing that theories of global justice can be beneficial for humanitarian causes, not in a comprehensive and consistent “all-or-nothing” manner, but rather on a case-by-case basis and through selective application of particular arguments.

Keywords

humanitarianismglobal justicePeter SingerJohn KekesThomas Poggeglobal well-being
Type
Special Section: Justice, Healthcare, and Wellness
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 261 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Daniels, N. Just Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1985;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Daniels, N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.Google Scholar

2. Lowry, C, Schüklenk, U. Two models in global health ethics. Public Health Ethics 2009;2(3):276–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. McFalls, L. Benevolent dictatorship: The formal logic of humanitarian government. In: Fassin, D, Pandolfi, M, eds. Contemporary States of Emergency: the Politics of Military and Humanitarian Interventions. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010, at 317.Google Scholar

4. See, for example, Lawford-Smith H. feasibility constraints and the cosmopolitan vision: Empirical reasons for choosing justice over humanity. In: van Hooft S, Vanderkerckhove W, eds. Questioning Cosmopolitanism. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010:137–50.

5. Calhoun, G. A world of emergencies: Fear, intervention, and the limits of cosmopolitan order. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 2004;41(4):373–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Slim H. Not philanthropy but rights: The proper politicisation of humanitarian philosophy. The International Journal of Human Rights 2002;6(2):4.

7. Obviously I do not claim that Haitians are to blame here, but simply seek to draw attention to the radically different impact of natural events. To look for direct or indirect causality is possible, but complex. For an interesting discussion of the Haitian case and the long-winding impact of French colonialism, see Taroon, I. Is it time for France to pay its real debt to Haiti? Washington Post May 13, 2015.

8. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent. Public Health Guide in Emergencies, 2nd ed. 2008; available at http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Forward.pdf (last accessed 17 May 2017).

9. For a discussion of morally messy situations in humanitarian action, see Lepora C, Goodin RE. On Complicity and Compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

10. See note 6, Slim 2002, at 1–22.

11. Slim, H. Doing the right thing: Relief agencies, moral dilemmas and moral responsibility in political emergencies and war. Disasters 1997;21(3):257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Ten Have, H. Macro-triage in disaster planning. In: O’Mathúna, DP, Gordijn, B, Clarke, M, eds. Disaster Bioethics: Normative Issues When Nothing is Normal. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014:13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. McFalls L. Benevolent dictatorship: The formal logic of humanitarian government. In: Fassin D, Pandolfi M, eds. Contemporary States of Emergency: the Politics of Military and Humanitarian Interventions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010, at 318.

14. Nagel T. The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2005;33(2):113–47.

15. Rawls J. Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999.

16. Singer, P. Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1972;1(3):229–43.Google Scholar

17. Therefore, I disagree with accounts that group Singer’s position under charity. Charity pertains to something that one can do and that is good to do, but a person is not immoral for not doing it. Morality and requirements of justice pertain to what one has to do. Singer, at least in his original work (1972), argues for the latter. On the other hand, I agree with some critics that Singer’s individualist approach (even if successful) is not sufficient to introduce sustainable long-term change in global conditions. See, for example, AJ. Langlois Charity and justice in global poverty relief. Australian Journal of Political Science 2008;43(4):685–98.

18. Kekes, J. On the supposed obligation to relieve famine. Philosophy 2002;77:503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Pogge T. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Cambridge; Polity Press; 2008, at 26.

20. See note 19, Pogge 2008.

21. See note 19, Pogge 2008, at 310. Lowry and Schüklenk, however, have argued that it is much easier to demonstrate causal links within one society and political system than globally; therefore, responsibility for a compatriot’s bad health might still be easier to prove. See note 2, Lowry, Shüklenk 2009.

22. Risse, M. Do we owe the global poor assistance or rectification? Ethics and International Affairs 2005;19(1):9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Walzer M. Achieving local and global justice. Dissent Magazine 2011(Summer):42–3.

24. Sen A. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.

25. Miller, SC. The Ethics of Need: Agency, Dignity and Obligations. New York: Routledge; 2012.Google Scholar

26. Robinson F. Global care ethics: Beyond distribution, beyond justice. Journal of Global Ethics 2013;9(2):131–43.

27. See note 24, Sen 2009.

28. Nussbaum M. Human functioning and social justice: In defense of aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory 1992;20(2):202–46; Nussbaum M. Sex and Social Justice. Oxford University Press; 1999.

29. This litte boy was a 3-year-old Syrian refugee, Alan Kurdi. The photograph referred to was by Nilüfer Demir.

30. Wolff J. Ethics and Public Policy. A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Routledge; 2011, at 201.

31. Campbell T. Questioning cosmopolitan justice. In: van Hooft S, Vanderkerckhove W, eds. Questioning Cosmopolitanism. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010, at 134.

32. Korf, B. Disasters, generosity and the other. The Geographical Journal 2006;172(3):245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Telford J, Cosgrave J. Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Synthesis Report. Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, 2006; available at http://www.alnap.org/resource/3535 (last accessed 17 May 2017).

34. Christie T, Asrat GA, Jiwani B, Maddix T, Montaner JSG. Exploring disparities between global HIV/AIDS funding and recent tsunami relief efforts: An ethical analysis. Developing World Bioethics 2007;7(1):1–7.