for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
Followed Journals
Journal you Follow: 0
Sign Up to follow journals, search in your chosen journals and, optionally, receive Email Alerts when new issues of your Followed Journals are published.
Already have an account? Sign In to see the journals you follow.
Journal Cover Global Justice : Theory Practice Rhetoric
  [0 followers]  Follow
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Online) 1835-6842
   Published by Global Justice Network Homepage  [1 journal]
  • 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. 9, No. 2 (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. 9, No. 2 (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. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Responding to Cognitive Injustice: Towards a ‘Southern’
           Decolonial Epistemology

    • Authors: Zara Bain
      Abstract: n/a
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.119
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Reparations — Legally Justified and Sine qua non for Global Justice,
           Peace and Security

    • Authors: Nora Wittmann
      Abstract: The paper assesses current rising reparations claims for the Maafa/ Maangamizi (‘African holocaust,’ comprising transatlantic slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism) from two angles. First, it explores the connectivity of reparations and global justice, peace and security. Second, it discusses how the claim is justified in international law. The concept of reparations in international law is also explored, revealing that reparations cannot be limited to financial compensation due to the nature of the damage and international law prescriptions. Comprehensive reparations based in international law require the removal of structures built on centuries of illegal acts and aggression, in the forms of transatlantic slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism. Reparations must also lead to the restitution of sovereignty to African and indigenous peoples globally. They are indispensable to halt the destruction of the earth as human habitat, caused by the violent European cultural, political, socio-economic system known as capitalism that is rooted in transatlantic slavery. 
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.118
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • From Reparations for Slavery to International Racial Justice: A Critical
           Republican Perspective

    • Authors: Magali Bessone
      Abstract: This paper focuses on demands for reparations for colonial slavery and their public reception in France. It argues that this bottom-up, context-sensitive approach to theorising reparations enables us to formulate a critical republican theory of international racial justice. It contrasts the critical republican perspective on reparations with a nation-state centred approach in which reparations activists are accused of threatening the French republic’s sense of homogeneity and unity, thus undermining the national narrative on the French identity. It also rejects the liberal egalitarian perspective, which itself rejects reparations in favour of focusing on present disadvantages. In so doing, this paper illustrates how the notion of non-domination offers a superior way of conceptualising global racial injustices compared to more traditional distributive outlooks. 
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.117
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Global Structural Exploitation: Towards an Intersectional Definition

    • Authors: Maeve McKeown
      Abstract: If Third World women form ‘the bedrock of a certain kind of global exploitation of labour,’ as Chandra Mohanty argues, how can our theoretical definitions of exploitation account for this' This paper argues that liberal theories of exploitation are insufficiently structural and that Marxian accounts are structural but are insufficiently intersectional. What we need is a structural and intersectional definition of exploitation in order to correctly identify global structural exploitation. Drawing on feminist, critical race/post-colonial and post-Fordist critiques of the Marxist definition and the intersectional accounts of Maria Mies and Iris Marion Young, this paper offers the following definition of structural exploitation: structural exploitation refers to the forced transfer of the productive powers of groups positioned as socially inferior to the advantage of groups positioned as socially superior. Global structural exploitation is a form of global injustice because it is a form of oppression. 
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.116
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Revisiting the Common Ownership of the Earth: A Democratic Critique of
           Global Distributive Justice Theories

    • Authors: Christiaan Boonen, Nicolas Brando
      Abstract: Many theories of global distributive justice are based on the assumption that all humans hold common ownership of the earth. As the earth is finite and our actions interconnect, we need a system of justice that regulates the potential appropriation of the common earth to ensure fairness. According to these theories, imposing limits and distributive obligations on private and public property arrangements may be the best mechanism for governing common ownership. We present a critique of the assumption that this issue can be solved within the private–public property regime, arguing that the boundaries of this regime should not be taken for granted and that the growing literature on the democratic commons movement suggests how this can be accomplished. We consider that, if the earth is defined as a common, the private– public property paradigm must be open to questioning, and democratic commoners’ activities should be considered. 
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.115
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Introduction

    • Authors: Maeve McKeown, Alasia Nuti
      Abstract: n/a
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.113
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
  • Beyond Anthropocentrism: Cosmopolitanism and Nonhuman Animals

    • Authors: Angie Pepper
      Abstract: All cosmopolitan approaches to global distributive justice are premised on the idea that humans are the primary units of moral concern. In this paper, I argue that neither relational nor non-relational cosmopolitans can unquestioningly assume the moral primacy of humans. Furthermore, I argue that, by their own lights, cosmopolitans must extend the scope of justice to most, if not all, nonhuman animals. To demonstrate that cosmopolitans cannot simply ‘add nonhuman animals and stir,’ I examine the cosmopolitan position developed by Martha Nussbaum in Frontiers of Justice. I argue that while Nussbaum explicitly includes nonhuman animals within the scope of justice, her account is marked by an unjustifiable anthropocentric bias. I ultimately conclude that we must radically reconceptualise the primary unit of cosmopolitan moral concern to encompass most, if not all, sentient animals. 
      PubDate: 2017-02-22
      DOI: 10.21248/gjn.9.2.114
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 2 (2017)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-