JournalTOCs

Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric
Number of Followers: 1

This is an Open Access Journal

Open Access journal
ISSN (Online) 1835-6842
Published by Global Justice Network

[1 journal]

TTIP, ‘Truth’ and the Future of Global Trade
- Authors: Amy Janzwood
  Abstract: Review: Ferdi De Ville and Gabriel Siles-Brügge, TTIP: The Truth about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2016).
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.5.0.134
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
The ‘Right to Have Rights’ 65 Years Later: Justice Beyond
Humanitarianism, Politics Beyond Sovereignty
- Authors: Katherine Howard
  Abstract: Readers of Hannah Arendt’s now classic formulation of the statelessness problem in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism abound at a moment when the number of stateless peoples worldwide continues to rise exponentially. Along with statelessness, few concepts in Arendt scholarship have spawned such a volume of literature, and perhaps none have provoked as much interest outside of the field of philosophy, as ‘the right to have rights.’ Interpreting this enigmatic term exposes the heart of our beliefs about the nature of the political and has important consequences for how we practice politics on a global scale because it implicitly takes plural human beings, and not the citizen, as its subjects. Arendt’s conceptualization of this problem remains unsurpassed in its diagnosis of the political situation of statelessness, as well as its intimate description of the human cost of what she refers to as ‘world loss,’ a phenomenon that the prevailing human rights and global justice discourse does not take into account. And yet, as an alternative framework for thinking about global politics, the right to have rights resists easy interpretation, let alone practical application.
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.124
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Is Investor-State Arbitration Unfair' A Freedom-Based Perspective
- Authors: Ayelet Banai
  Abstract: Investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) is an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes between foreign investors and host-states. Seemingly a technical issue in private international law, ISDS procedures have recently become a matter of public concern and the target of political resistance, due to the power they grant to foreign investors in matters of public policies in the countries they invest in. This article examines the practice of ISDS through the lenses of liberal-statist theories of international justice, which value self-determination. It argues that the investor-state arbitration system illustrates how liberal-statist theories of international distributive justice ought to care about relative socioeconomic disadvantage, contra the sufficiency principle that they typically defend. The sufficiency principle draws on a questionable conception of the freedom that self-determination consists in.
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.112
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Growing the Pie or Slicing it Differently - on the Need to Disentangle Two
Aspects of Trade Agreements
- Authors: Peter Dietsch
  Abstract: Recent trade negotiations such as TTIP include investor protection clauses. Against the background of an analysis of the case for trade, the paper asks whether such clauses can be justified from a normative perspective. More specifically, what is the impact of investor protection on the domestic distribution of the gains from trade between labour and capital, and how should we assess this impact from the perspective of justice' In order to answer this question, the paper develops a series of ideal-type scenarios that reflect the consequences of investor protection on employment on the one hand, and on the distributive conflict between labour and capital on the other. While no claim is made which of these scenarios corresponds to TTIP or other trade agreements, they provide a useful normative framework to analyse such agreements.
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.111
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
The Trade Regime Complex and Megaregionals – An Exploration from the
Perspective of International Domination
- Authors: Clara Brandi
  Abstract: Megaregional trade negotiations have become the subject of heated debate, above all in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In this article, I argue that the justice of the global order suffers from its institutional fragmentation into regime complexes. From a republican perspective, which aspires to non-domination as a guiding principles and idea of global justice, regime complexes raise specific and important challenges in that they open the door to specific forms of domination. I thereby challenge a more optimistic outlook in regime complexes, which paints a positive normative picture of regime complexes, arguing that they enable the enhancement of democracy beyond the state and, consequently, have the potential to reduce the democratic deficit in global governance. By drawing attention to how regime complexes reinforce domination-related injustice, this article contributes an original perspective on megaregionals and to exploring the implications of global justice as non-domination.
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.109
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Introduction
- Authors: Miriam Ronzoni
  Abstract: Megaregional Trade Agreements: Challenges to Distributive Justice and Self-Determination'
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.133
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Multilateralism and Megaregionalism from the Grounds-of-Justice Standpoint
- Authors: Mathias Risse
  Abstract: This paper considers the trend towards megaregionalism (TTIP, TPP) that became prominent in the trade domain in the last years of the Obama administration. While megaregionalism has fallen by the wayside since Trump’s inauguration, the underlying rationale for such treaties will most likely reassert itself rather soon. So there are structural issues that need to be discussed from a standpoint of global justice. In all likelihood, megaregionalism is detrimental to global justice. TTIP in particular, or anything like it, might derail any possibility for a trade organization to aid the pursuit of justice at the global level, and any possibility that trade will be used to that end. From the standpoint of global justice one must hope that megaregionalism does not replace WTO multilateralism. The global-justice framework used here is the grounds-of-justice approach offered in the author’s 2012 On Global Justice.
  PubDate: 2017-12-01
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.10.1.108
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Rubenstein’s Analysis of the Humanitarian INGOs: The Political Ethics of
Decision Making Processes
- Authors: Eda Keskin
  Abstract: n/a
  PubDate: 2017-02-22
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.120
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Expertise and the Politics of Failure
- Authors: Rahel Kunz
  Abstract: n/a
  PubDate: 2017-02-22
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.121
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
Epistemic Inequality and its Colonial Descendants
- Authors: Nick Sagos
  Abstract: n/a
  PubDate: 2017-02-22
  DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.122
  Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)