John Rawls's Theory Of International Justice

1771 Words8 Pages
4.1. International Jurisprudence
I would like to introduce the issue of international justice through the evaluation and analysis of John Rawls’ work The Law of Peoples. I do not intend to go through all the main issues Rawls’ work deals with nor shall I consider whether Rawls’ theory of justice is consequently applied. I shall rather focus on some issues of international justice. Regarding the International Justice, A Forster further asserts that it is, “a pacific international cooperation between liberal and decent society. It is an appropriate set of principles according to which relations between societies can be organized in as peaceful, stable and just manner as possible.” The principal point for the content of the Law of Peoples
…show more content…
“Rawls’ law of peoples regulates relations between different states; and is distinguished from cosmopolitan law (ius cosmopoliticum) which regulates the relations between a state and citizens of foreign states as well as foreigners as a whole.” Any concept of international law necessarily implies a specific concept of the human being. It is important to ascertain whether sociality is considered as a peculiar feature in individuals, since their preservation necessarily implies the defence of the social bonds the individual has within the group to which one belongs. A decent society must fulfil the following conditions: “its foreign politics must not be aggressive, thus respecting other societies’ independence, and it must have a common good conception of justice, so that all peoples’ “advantage are considered even though such advantage is not equal for everyone, when taking public decisions and so as to secure the basic human rights to everyone.” All people are treated as subjects of law and judges acknowledge and enforce this common conception of justice.” The first difference between the domestic and the international positions is that the international consists of peoples, rather than individuals nor is the state. This reflects Rawls’ view that the actors in international politics should, in fact, be understood as peoples rather than states. The states on the other hand are motivated by territorial, ideological or cultural ambitions which would mean that the people are interested in preserving their existing territory and institutions. In this ideal situations, people are of two types: the liberal people
Open Document