David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):282-300 (2011)
We live in an era of global migratory potential — a time when a vast number of people have the physical capacity to move relatively quickly and easily between states. In this article, I use this fact to motivate a powerful objection to ‘statism’, the view that the egalitarian principles of justice which apply to citizens have no application outside the boundaries of the state. I argue that, in a world characterized by global migratory potential, the supposed contrast between the normative standing of citizens and non-citizens on which the doctrine of statism depends is much harder to establish than proponents of the doctrine seem to realize. Focusing initially on the well-known justification for statism based on the notion of reciprocity between cooperators in a joint venture for mutual advantage, I argue that non-citizens play just as important a role as citizens in upholding schemes of cooperation, and that non-citizens should therefore be included in the scope of egalitarian justice along with citizens. I then go on to explain why the problem raised by the fact of migratory potential threatens to undermine not only the reciprocity-based conception, but all other conceptions of statism. The challenge for the proponent of statism is to show that the relationship in which each individual citizen stands with the state is not only a justice-grounding relationship, but also one in which no non-citizen stands with the state. The challenge has not been met so far, and I argue that it is unlikely to be met in the future
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bruce Landesman (2012). Brock’s Cosmopolitanism: Sensible but Incomplete. Diametros 31 (31):146-156.
Chris Armstrong (2009). Global Egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):155-171.
Jonathan Wolff (2009). Global Justice and Norms of Co-Operation: The 'Layers of Justice' View. In Stephen De Wijze, Matthew H. Kramer & Ian Carter (eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice: Themes and Challenges. Routledge. 16--34.
Simon Caney (2011). Humanity, Associations and Global Justice: A Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism. The Monist 94 (4):506-534.
Allison B. Wolf (2005). Can Global Justice Provide a Path Toward Achieving Justice Across the Americas? Journal of Global Ethics 1 (2):153 – 176.
Daniel M. Weinstock (ed.) (2007). Global Justice, Global Institutions. University of Calgary Press.
Xianzhong Huang (2007). Justice as a Virtue: An Analysis of Aristotle's Virtue of Justice. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (2):265-279.
Massimo Renzo (2008). Duties of Samaritanism and Political Obligation. Legal Theory 14 (3):193–217.
Deen Chatterjee (2009). The Conflicting Loyalties of Statism and Globalism: Can Global Democracy Resolve the Liberal Conundrum? Metaphilosophy 40 (1):65-76.
Chris Armstrong (2011). Citizenship, Egalitarianism and Global Justice. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (5):603-621.
Kostas Koukouzelis (2009). Liberal Internationalism and Global Social Justice. Journal of Global Ethics 5 (2):97-108.
Laura Valentini (2011). Coercion and (Global) Justice. American Political Science Review 105 (1):205-220.
Kok-Chor Tan (2010). Global Justice and Global Relations. Social Theory and Practice 36 (3):499-514.
Added to index2011-01-12
Total downloads24 ( #72,191 of 1,101,566 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?