In this unit, we discuss foundational works for the contemporary debate surrounding concepts of global justice. We explore notions of justice based on an existing and unchanging natural order with justice born out of necessity or utility. We also address justice as an integral part of the progression of human nature. We introduce challenges inherent in establishing the legitimacy and authority of international law. Finally, we address the "state of nature" and the role justice plays in the international order based on state sovereignty.
Completing this unit should take you approximately 2 hours.
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) was a Dutch philosopher and legal scholar who originated the ideas of natural law and just war. These concepts continue to influence international human rights and humanitarian law today. His influence continues to shape ideas about when and how it is justifiable for states to go to war.
As you read this introduction to Grotius and his work, think about how his ideas may have shaped the arguments you saw in the previous unit. Focus on the sections on Natural Law and the Doctrine of Just War.
Utilitarianism is a school of thought that argues that the actions that provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people are the most morally just. As you read about this philosophy, consider how its implementation might affect countries, communities, and minority groups. Also, consider: who gets to decide what benefits the greatest number of people? How large must the majority that benefits be for an action to be just? Who gets to have a voice in the decision-making process?
Read this introduction to David Hume (1711–1776), the Scottish philosopher. Pay special attention to the section on Utilitarianism. Can you define utilitarianism in your own words? Think about how it might apply to questions of human rights.
Read section III, Of Justice, where David Hume argues that justice arises from utility. How does he view justice in society? How can justice vary across situations? What remains consistent? Do you think these utility arguments apply to what you have learned so far about human rights? Why or why not?
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) was a German philosopher during the European Age of Enlightenment and one of the founders of the German school of idealism. Some of his writing concerned how to establish peace between states and how to create the most morally just form of government.
This article connects Kant's arguments with both broader Western philosophy and more recent events surrounding global justice, such as the International Criminal Court. Consider how these events challenge or support the arguments Kant and other philosophers set forth.
Following our focus on the philosophical roots of international law in the previous section, we examine positivist legal theory and two international bodies that aim to enforce international law. Legal positivism provides a counterargument to the natural law theory. It argues that law is not naturally connected to morality and rooted in nature, but rather human-made. Pay attention to how positivism influences interpretations of law and legitimacy.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are two international institutions that investigate and sometimes try international law cases. As you go through this section, think about these institutions' strengths and limitations in achieving global justice and protecting human rights.
Read this overview, which compares positivist legal theory and natural law. Consider which framework you would use to interpret some of your local laws, and what the results might be. How can each of these theories apply to international law? Who is the sovereign or ultimate authority in deciding and enforcing international law?
Watch this introduction to the International Court of Justice, the primary judicial body of the United Nations. How do you think the ICJ can contribute to global justice and the protection of human rights? How do you think the nationality of the members of the ICJ matters in their approach to cases?
This video gives an overview of the work of the International Criminal Court. As you watch, think about how the limits of the court's jurisdiction, especially the requirement that states consent to the court's jurisdiction, affect its ability to serve as an instrument of global justice.
Read this introduction to the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute is an international agreement that established the International Criminal Court, the kinds of crimes that could be brought to the court, and the process for trying a case in the ICC. The Rome Statute became law in 2002. Can you think of events in history that may have been good cases for the ICC if it had existed earlier? What about more recent events, since the founding of the court?
This article examines one of the biggest challenges to the ICC's legitimacy: its perception of bias. The court has been accused of taking sides in civil wars where both parties to the war could be credibly accused of crimes, and of ignoring crimes committed by non-African countries. Read this article and think about how politics shapes the cases the court chooses, not just the judicial ideals it is meant to uphold.
This article engages with structural racism, as opposed to individual prejudice, in the workings of the court. Consider how this problem relates to the legitimacy of the court and the pursuit of global justice.
This resource argues that African countries should continue to work with the ICC, despite some of the disparities in how the court has tried cases so far. Read this and consider the arguments in favor and against the court from the perspective of African countries.
Many political philosophers imagine a "state of nature" existed before states and national governments were established. Humans supposedly lived in a time of chaos and conflict, of all against all. While history shows no evidence this "state of nature" ever existed, it provides a useful way to think about how humans choose to form different kinds of societies and forms of government. Today, some theorists argue that a chaotic state of nature exists among states because we lack an overarching government or commonly-agreed-upon world order. Consider what this means for the practice of international law and the pursuit of global justice.
Read this introduction to the principle of sovereignty in international relations. Do you agree with the author's argument that most states follow international law most of the time? Think about examples for and against this proposition. Why would states follow international law if to do so conflicts with their interests? What could happen if they do not?
Read this short introduction to classical realism. Pay close attention to what it says about the state system's anarchy and how this affects the ability of states to cooperate. Compare this reading with the previous article and think about the following questions: How do their arguments differ, and what does that imply about effective international law? Which argument do you find more convincing?
Use this activity to practice contextualizing the information you've learned in Unit 2. Once you submit your answers, evaluate them using the provided guide to responding.