The aim of this article is to introduce and defend a revised conception of responsibility - namely, participatory responsibility. It starts from the insight that some pressing problems of global injustice render our common conception of responsibility useless. As an alternative the author mainly discusses Iris Marion Young's social connection model of responsibility. However, Young's approach becomes unconvincing in addressing and weighing specific duties. The author therefore adds a basic rights approach to her conception and argues that mere participation in (...) a basic-rights-violating structure creates superordinated responsibilities for justice. Thus institutions and individual persons hold responsibility not because they have intentionally caused a foreseeable wrong, but because they have participated in, and thereby maintained, a social structure which has morally unacceptable effects. (shrink)

Wir brauchen eine gerechtere Globalisierung – diese Einsicht ist ebenso alternativlos, wie sie utopisch anmutet. Um dennoch die realistische Hoffnung auf eine kosmopolitische Weltordnung in Aussicht zu stellen, konstruiert die Schrift einen Menschenrechtsansatz globaler Gerechtigkeit. Teil I beschäftigt sich mit der Frage der Praktikabilität. Das Problem wird zunächst an Kants kosmopolitischen Schriften herausgearbeitet, um es dann methodisch anhand von Rawls’ politischem Konstruktivismus und Honneths normativem Rekonstruktivismus zu lösen. Anschließend an Max Weber, Hans Jonas und Hannah Arendt wird dann in Teil (...) II eine Theorie politischer Verantwortung entwickelt, die sich auf globale politische Verantwortungsverhältnisse übertragen lässt. Teil III legt schließlich einen Menschenrechtsansatz globaler Gerechtigkeit vor. Diese realistische Utopie ist pragmatisch darin begründet, dass das globale Menschenrechtsregime bereits politische Verantwortungsverhältnisse für die wichtigsten menschlichen Interessen etabliert hat. Aus der politischen Menschenrechtspraxis und ihrer Idee einer universellen Menschenwürde, so die Grundthese der Schrift, lässt sich eine globale politische Gerechtigkeitskonzeption rekonstruieren. (shrink)

It is a crucial question whether practicalities should have an impact in developing an applicable theory of human rights—and if, how (far) such constraints can be justified. In the course of the non-ideal turn of today’s political philosophy, any entitlements (and social entitlements in particular) stand under the proviso of practical feasibility. It would, after all, be unreasonable to demand something which is, under the given political and economic circumstances, unachievable. Thus, many theorist—particularly those belonging to the liberal camp—begin to (...) question the very idea of social human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility. This new minimalism about human rights motivates an immanent critique arguing that even if we were to proceed from a liberal framework, we would still wind up with a justification of the full list of social human rights. In the first part of this article, I will present the central positions of the debate presented by Amartya Sen, Maurice Cranston and Pablo Gilabert. Initially arguing that a minimalism of human rights on grounds of practical infeasibility alone proves unjustifiable, however, I shall open up two further perspectives, which allow practical infeasibilities to become normatively determinate. Discussing contributions by James Griffin and Charles Beitz, I will defend the thesis that certain feasibility constraints on (social) human rights can be justified on the condition that they are grounded either in a normative idea of the appropriate implementation of these rights or in reflection of the practical function of a theory of human rights. (shrink)

This article applies the idea of political reconciliation to current debates on global injustices. My underlying thesis is that the idea of reconciliation fits better to the nonideal circumstances of global exploitation and domination. Originally, political reconciliation defines a transitional process from a state of severe injustice to a state of renewed social peace and cooperation under conditions of serious disagreement and in the absence of a well-ordered social structure. What the theory of political reconciliation has to add to nonideal (...) theorizing is that political stability and unity are to be based on a societal healing process that depends on institutional measures of trust-building, truth telling and forgiveness. (shrink)

Im Rahmen der Reihe Klassiker Auslegen wird nun auch Rawls drittem Hauptwerk, Das Recht der Völker, ein kooperativer Kommentar gewidmet. Rawls entwickelt in seinem Spätwerk eine realistische Utopie internationaler Gerechtigkeit, die bei vielen seiner kosmopolitischen Schüler schnell auf Ablehnung stieß. Aus dem Abstand von 20 Jahren wird nun deutlich, dass die Schrift an Aktualität eher gewonnen und bis heute wichtige Debatte geprägt hat. Die einzelnen Beiträge rekonstruieren Rawls' Position zu globaler Gerechtigkeit, Menschenrechten, nichtidealer Theorie, internationaler Toleranz, Methode des politischen Konstruktivismus, (...) öffentlicher Vernunft um. Nach den Kommentarbänden zu Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit und Politischer Liberalismus liegt damit eine Einführung in Rawls' Theorieentwicklung in Gänze vor. Der Kommentar bietet somit ein für Studierende und Lehrende unentbehrliches Werkzeug, um sich mit der Politischen Philosophie internationaler Beziehungen zu befassen. (shrink)

This work is to be understood from the systematic perspective as an extension of John Rawl's Theory of Justice. Constituting a normative vanishing-point, the individual's moral self-respect is placed at the centre of the theory's justification. Starting from the thesis that self-respect presents itself as the highestgood, the book defends a number of fundamental moral rights that need to be realized legally, economically, culturally, and politically so that a person can maintain her self-respect.

ABSTRACTThis article applies the idea of political reconciliation to current debates on the role and legitimacy of global governance. My underlying thesis is that the idea of reconciliation fits better with the non-ideal circumstances of global injustice. To this end, I will first of all develop a three-tiered model of political reconciliation and introduce the related concept of restorative justice. I will then look at some of the most obvious forms of international and global injustice – historical injustice, economic exploitation, (...) and political domination – and argue that a normative theory of political reconciliation provides better proposals for feasible global governance reforms than do theories of corrective, retributive, or distributive justice. Finally, I will make a few comments on the role of political philosophy as a medium of ‘narrative reconciliation’. (shrink)

In this paper I outline a critical justification of the practice of political whistleblowing as exemplified by the case of Edward Snowden. At first, I argue that the question of justifiability cannot be settled with regard to absolutely binding principles such as special loyalties or the categorical duty to inform fellow citizens. What is required instead is the careful weighing of all relevant consequential and deontic reasons. However, this weighing process has to be publically justified. I will therefore turn to (...) the theory of civil disobedience which provides us with two roots of public justification: widely accepted constitutional values and the primacy of public deliberation. In this view, political whistleblowing is to be seen as a special case of civil disobedience and can be justified along the lines of both liberal and republican approaches. However, in the end of the paper I will indicate that we have to transcend the state-based model of civil disobedience. Snowden’s acts of whistleblowing have a further cosmopolitan intention and need to be justified in terms of avant-garde principles of global justice. (shrink)