Rectifying International Injustice examines the theory behind claims for reparations and compensation as a result of historic international injustice.

The history of international relations is characterized by widespread injustice. What implications does this have for those living in the present? Many writers have dismissed the moral urgency of rectificatory justice in a domestic context, as a result of their forward-looking accounts of distributive justice. Rectifying International Injustice argues that historical international injustice raises a series of distinct theoretical problems, as a result of the popularity of backward-looking accounts of distributive justice in an international context. It lays out three morally relevant forms of connection with the past, based in ideas of benefit, entitlement and responsibility. Those living in the present may have obligations to pay compensation to those in other states insofar as they are benefiting, and others are suffering, as a result of the effects of historic injustice. They may be in possession of property which does not rightly belong to them, but to which others have inherited entitlements. Finally, they may be members of political communities which bear collective responsibility for an ongoing failure to rectify historic injustice. Rectifying International Injustice considers each of these three linkages with the past in detail. It examines the complicated relationship between rectificatory justice and distributive justice, and argues that many of those who resist cosmopolitan demands for the global redistribution of resources have failed to appreciate the extent to which past wrongdoing undermines the legitimacy of contemporary resource holdings.

Calls for redress of historical wrongs regularly make headlines around the world. People dispute the degree to which justice should be concerned with righting past wrongs, with some arguing that justice should be primarily focused on claims arising from present disadvantage. Proponents and sceptics of restitution, compensation, and other forms of historical redress have engaged with the thesis that historical injustice can be superseded, the idea that changing circumstances following historical injustices can alter what justice later requires. The “supersession thesis,” developed by legal and political philosopher Jeremy Waldron, has been challenged, both conceptually and in terms of its possible application and implications. This is the first book to critically assess how the supersession thesis might be reconstructed, challenged, or applied to empirical cases, with an eye toward larger questions surrounding the temporal orientation of justice. Cases examined include Indigenous peoples, linguistic injustice, and climate change. The edited volume includes contributions by established and junior scholars from philosophy, law, American Indian Studies, and political science, who draw from Indigenous thought, settler colonial theory, liberalism, theories of historical entitlements, and structural injustice theories. It concludes with a reply by Jeremy Waldron. The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.

Argues that understanding the impact of past injustices faced by some peoples can help us understand and overcome injustice today.

Breaking out of the dominance of Anglo-American scholarship, this volume centralises East Asian philosophical traditions to explore cross-cultural perspectives in the field of global justice studies. By bringing together diverse traditions of thinking about justice that contrasts East Asian and Western thinkers' traditions, it avoids the shortcomings of narrow and one-sided conceptualisations of global justice. A range of contributors from East Asia, Europe, and the US who are conversant with both Western and East Asian philosophical traditions provide a rich engagement with contemporary issues relating to global justice. The book opens with a section devoted to the methodological challenges specific to cross-cultural approaches to justice, including the universalism/particularism debate and the conditions of the possibility of cross-cultural comparisons. Part II explores how major East Asian philosophical traditions-including Confucianism, Legalism, Daoism and Buddhism-consider issues related to global justice. The essays in Part III adopt a cross-cultural and/or comparative perspective on justice, enabling the readers to appreciate similarities and differences between the East Asian and Western perspectives on justice, and to appreciate cultural variation. Key applied issues in global justice, such as epistemic injustice, human rights, women's rights, nationalism, religious pluralism, coercion, corruption and post-colonial justice, receive full consideration in the final section of this indispensable reference work for understandings of global justice in East Asia specifically and cross-culturally.

This book examines how justice and reconciliation in world politics should be conceived in response to the injustice and alienation of modern colonialism?

Ethics and International Relations (IR), once considered along the margins of the IR field, has emerged as one of the most eclectic and interdisciplinary research areas today. Yet the same diversity that enriches this field also makes it a difficult one to characterize. Is it, or should it only be, the social-scientific pursuit of explaining and understanding how ethics influences the behaviours of actors in international relations? Or, should it be a field characterized by what the world should be like, based on philosophical, normative and policy-based arguments? This Handbook suggests that it can actually be both, as the contributions contained therein demonstrate how those two conceptions of Ethics and International Relations are inherently linked. Seeking to both provide an overview of the field and to drive debates forward, this Handbook is framed by an opening chapter providing a concise and accessible overview of the complex history of the field of Ethics and IR, and a conclusion that discusses how the field may progress in the future and what subjects are likely to rise to prominence. Within are 44 distinct and original contributions from scholars teaching and researching in the field, which are structured around 8 key thematic sections: Philosophical Resources International Relations Theory Religious Traditions International Security and Just War Justice, Rights and Global Governance International Intervention Global Economics Environment, Health and Migration Drawing together a diverse range of scholars, the Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations provides a cutting-edge overview of the field by bringing together these eclectic, albeit dynamic, themes and topics. It will be an essential resource for students and scholars alike.

Should contemporary citizens provide material redress to right past wrongs? There is a widespread belief that contemporary citizens should take responsibility for rectifying past wrongs. Nahshon Perez challenges this view, questioning attempts to aggregate dead wrongdoers with living people, and examining ideas of intergenerational collective responsibility with great suspicion. He distinguishes sharply between those who are indeed unjustly enriched by past wrongs, and those who are not. Looking at issues such as the distinction between compensation and restitution, counterfactuals and the non-identity problem, Perez concludes that individuals have the right to a clean slate, and that almost all of the pro-intergenerational redress arguments are unconvincing. Key Features *Unique in claiming past wrongs should not be rectified *Analyses pro-intergenerational material redress arguments *Case studies include court cases from Australia, Northern Cyprus, the United States and Austria, and political and social movements from the US, Palestine and Arab countries

The first volume to explore the role of race and empire in political theory debates over global justice.

Domination consists in subjection to the will of others and manifests itself both as a personal relation and a structural phenomenon serving as the context for relations of power. Domination has again become a central political concern through the revival of the republican tradition of political thought (not to be confused with the US political party). However, normative debates about domination have mostly remained limited to the context of domestic politics. Also, the republican debate has not taken into account alternative ways of conceptualizing domination. Critical theorists, liberals, feminists, critical race theorists, and postcolonial writers have discussed domination in different ways, focusing on such problems as imperialism, racism, and the subjection of indigenous peoples. This volume extends debates about domination to the global level and considers how other streams in political theory and nearby disciplines enrich, expand upon, and critique the republican tradition’s contributions to the debate. This volume brings together, for the first time, mostly original pieces on domination and global political justice by some of this generation’s most prominent scholars, including Philip Pettit, James Bohman, Rainer Forst, Amy Allen, John McCormick, Thomas McCarthy, Charles Mills, Duncan Ivison, John Maynor, Terry Macdonald, Stefan Gosepath, and Hauke Brunkhorst.