Chapter 1
Dimensions of international justice and social justice
1.1 International justice: legal and developmental aspects The Charter of the United Nations makes no explicit distinction between international justice, or justice among nations, and social justice, or justice among people. The Charter, of which the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part, treats justice as a broad principle that ought to be applied in international relations. In the Preamble and Article 1 of the Charter, justice is associated with respect for international law. In Article 2, justice is linked to the sovereign equality of all Members and to the maintenance of peace and security. The references to peace and the equality of nations imply that each State should refrain from any use of force that may jeopardize or undermine the territorial integrity or political independence of another. Another implication is that the United Nations should not intervene in matters that are “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State” (Article 2, para. 7), except to enforce measures adopted by the Security Council in line with the provisions set out in Chapter VII of the Charter.6
The “one country, one vote” rule in the General Assembly is a visible manifestation of the Organization’s recognition of sovereign equality. The concept of justice as defined above will be referred to in the present text as international justice, with the principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, and equal voting rights constituting the legal aspects of international justice. By the mid-1960s another dimension of international justice had taken shape with the decolonization of a number of countries. The United Nations assumed increasing responsibility for helping these newly independent Member States in their efforts to achieve economic and social progress. Gradually the concept of development was substituted for the early emphasis on progress and evolved into a core component of the Organization’s mandate. International cooperation for development was placed next to the maintenance of peace and security as a second pillar upon which the activities of the United Nations were based, the main objective being to narrow and ultimately close the gap between developed and developing countries. Efforts relating to this goal of bridging the distance separating poor and affluent nations are identified here as representing the developmental aspects of international justice.
1.2 Social justice: a recent and politically charged concept The concept of social justice and its relevance and application within the present context require a more detailed explanation. As mentioned previously, the notion of social justice is relatively new. None of history’s great philosophers—not Platoor Aristotle, or Confucius or Averroes, or even Rousseau or Kant—saw the need to consider justice or the redress of injustices from a social perspective. The concept first surfaced in Western thought and political language in the wake of the industrial revolution and the parallel development of the socialist doctrine. It emerged as an expression of protest against what was perceived as the capitalist exploitation of labour and as a focal point for the development of measures to improve the human condition. It was born as a revolutionary slogan embodying the ideals of progress and fraternity. Following the revolutions that shook Europe in the mid-1800s, social justice became a rallying cry for progressive thinkers and political activists. Proudhon, notably, identified justice with social justice, and social justice with respect for human dignity. By the mid-twentieth century, the concept of social justice had become central to the ideologies and programmes of virtually all the leftist and centrist political parties around the world, and few dared to oppose it directly. Social justice represented the essence and the raison d’être of the social democrat doctrine and left its mark in the decades following the Second World War. Of particular importance in the present context is the link between the growing legitimization of the concept of social justice, on the one hand, and the emergence of the social sciences as distinct areas of activity and the creation of economics and sociology as disciplines separate from philosophy (notably moral philosophy), on the other hand. Social justice became more clearly defined when a distinction was drawn between the social sphere and the economic sphere, and grew into a mainstream preoccupation when a number of economists became convinced that it was their duty not only to describe phenomena but also to propose criteria for the distribution of the fruits of human activity.
The application of social justice requires a geographical, sociological, political and cultural framework within which relations between individuals and groups can be understood, assessed, and characterized as just or unjust. In modern times, this framework has been the nation-State. The country typically represents the context in which various aspects of social justice, such as the distribution of income in a population, are observed and measured; this benchmark is used not only by national Governments but also by international organizations and supranational entities such as the European Union. At the same time, there is clearly a universal dimension to social justice, with humanity as the common factor. Slaves, exploited workers and oppressed women are above all victimized human beings whose location matters less than their circumstances. This universality has taken on added depth and relevance as the physical and cultural distance between the world’s peoples has effectively shrunk. In their discussions regarding the situation of migrant workers, for example, Forum participants readily acknowledged the national and global dimensions of social justice.
1.3 Social justice: the equivalent of distributive justice In the contemporary context, social justice is typically taken to mean distributive justice. The terms are generally understood to be synonymous and interchangeable in both common parlance and the language of international relations. The concept of social/distributive justice is implied in various academic and theoretical works and in many international legal or quasi-legal texts (such as the Charter and Universal Declaration) that may only include broad references to “justice”. In certain international instruments, including the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Summit for Social Development in 1995, references to social justice are more explicit. In the tone-setting first chapter of A Theory of Justice, a masterpiece published in 1971, John Rawls refers on several occasions to the “principles of social justice” when formulating his two “principles of justice”.7 Social justice is treated as synonymous with distributive justice, which again is often identified with unqualified references to justice, in the specific context of the activities of the United Nations, the precise reasons for which may only be conjectured. In its work, for reasons that will be examined in chapter 5, the United Nations has essentially from the beginning separated the human rights domain from the economic and social domains, with activities in the latter two having been almost exclusively focused on development. Issues relating to the distributive and redistributive effects of social and economic policies—issues of justice—have therefore been addressed separately from issues of rights, including those inscribed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The unfortunate consequences of this dissociation must be acknowledged. To support the concept of social justice is to argue for a reconciliation of these priorities within the context of a broader social perspective in which individuals endowed with rights and freedoms operate within the framework of the duties and responsibilities attached to living in society. Not-withstanding the implied associations between social justice, redistributive justice, and justice as a more general concept, the fact is that the explicit commitment to social justice has seriously deteriorated; over the past decade, the expression has practically disappeared from the international lexicon and likely from the official language of most countries. The position will be taken here that the United Nations must work to try to restore the integrity and appeal of social justice, interpreted in the contemporary context as distributive justice. Returning to the Charter, it may be argued that while not explicitly stated, justice among people and for all the world’s peoples is its fundamental rationale. As noted earlier, these priorities fall under the heading of international justice, whereby Governments are compelled to represent and serve their populations and act in their best interest, without discrimination, and the sovereign equality of all States is respected.
In the Preamble to the Charter, the commitment to justice for people is expressed as a reaffirmation of “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
Social Justice in an Open World:
The Role of the United Nations of the human person, [and] in the equal rights of men and women”. It requires the promotion of “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” and of “the economic and social advancement of all peoples”. It underlies the third stated purpose of the United Nations (after maintaining peace and friendly relations among nations), which is “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Article 1). This purpose is then reiterated in Article 13 as one of the functions of the General Assembly, and in Articles 60 and 62 in reference to the role of the Economic and Social Council in this regard. In short, justice derives from equality of rights for all peoples and the possibility for all human beings, without discrimination, to benefit from the economic and social progress disseminated and secured through international cooperation.
1.4 Economic justice: a component of social justice Economic justice, defined as the existence of opportunities for meaningful work and employment and the dispensation of fair rewards for the productive activities of individuals, will be treated here as an aspect of social justice. The customary distinction between economic justice and social justice is intellectually unsatisfactory, as it serves to legitimize the dichotomization of the economic and social spheres. This tendency can seriously limit the potential for the advancement of justice, particularly within organizations that exercise a normative function with regard to matters of development. In recent years there has been a discernable trend in international discourse towards the attenuation not only of the concept of social justice, but also of the related concepts of social development and social policy. The social sphere has in many respects been marginalized. One reason for the decline in “social” orientations is the failure to adopt a comprehensive perspective on what the concept encompasses. As asserted later, support for the idea of social justice has gradually diminished because its advocates and practitioners have neglected one of its essential dimensions, which is for individuals to have the opportunity to exercise their initiative and use their talents and to be fairly rewarded for their efforts. To acknowledge the necessity of viewing economic justice as an element of social justice is, again, to argue for a social perspective on human affairs. Economic justice is one among many interrelated dimensions of life in society. It is suggested here that the distributive and redistributive aspects of justice do not have to be separated or perceived as antagonistic.
1.5 Universal grounds for the determination of what is just and what is unjust Individuals, institutions, Governments and international organizations make judgments about what is just and what is unjust based on complex and generally unformulated frameworks of moral and political values. Such frameworks vary considerably across cultures and over time, but through the centuries prophets, philosophers and other intellectuals have repeatedly attempted to identify common ground that would allow all human beings in their own and in successive generations to agree on definitions of right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust. It is often said that all great religions and philosophies embody the same core principles and values, and beyond the different metaphysics and institutional settings, reflect the same belief in the capacity of human beings to make moral judgments and to seek perfection in some form. Progress was originally a spiritual concept and was only later applied to the fruits of human technical ingenuity, and the same is true for the notion of justice, which has retained much of the timeless immanence deriving from its religious roots. The United Nations is an outgrowth and an expression of this quest for the universal, of this purposeful search for a common humanity. Notions such as human nature and natural law have found expression in the more modern concepts of the “social contract” and “social compact”. To give justice among individuals and nations a more tangible character and contemporary relevance, the United Nations has used the language of rights, and of equality, equity and inequality, in reference to both positive objectives to be pursued and negative situations to be corrected.
1.6 Three critical domains of equality and equity There are three areas of priority with regard to equality and equity highlighted in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenants on Human Rights, and in subsequent texts adopted by the General Assembly, notably the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action and the United Nations Millennium Declaration. They include the following:
• Equality of rights, primarily implying the elimination of all forms of discrimina-
tion and respect for the fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of all individuals. This represents the most fundamental form of equality. As stated in article 1 of the Universal Declaration, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, and article 2 is even more specific:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
• Equality of opportunities, which requires stable social, economic, cultural and
political conditions that enable all individuals to fulfil their potential and contribute to the economy and to society. Interpreted restrictively, this form of equality is akin to equality of rights and means “simply” that societies and Governments refrain from discrimination and allow individuals to freely pursue their aspirations and develop and apply their talents within the moral and legal limits imposed by respect for the freedom of others. Thus defined, it is often identified
Social Justice in an Open World:
The Role of the United Nations with justice and, in the sense described above, more precisely with economic justice. Support for this objective has been linked to the emergence of the lais-sez-faire doctrine, and from a philosophical perspective this aspect of equality is very close to liberalism and utilitarianism. Interpreted more broadly, equality of opportunities is linked to deliberate action, in particular the application of public policies, to correct and offset the many “unnatural” inequalities that separate individuals from different sociocultural backgrounds and milieus. With this levelling of the playing field, the financial and social success of individuals is largely determined by their natural talent, character, effort, and level of ambition, along with a certain measure of chance or fate. Meritocracy is the logical outcome. Policies focusing on health, education and housing are traditionally seen as particularly important for ensuring equality of opportunities, or égalité des chances. In political philosophy, this approach relates to the tradition of the social contract and is a critical aspect of social justice, as understood within socialist and social democratic conventions.
• Equity in living conditions for all individuals and households. This concept is understood to reflect a contextually determined “acceptable” range of inequalities in income, wealth and other aspects of life in society, with the presumption of general agreement with regard to what is just or fair (or “equitable”) at any given time in any particular community, or in the world as a whole if universal norms are applied. This shift in terms, from equality to equity, derives from the fact that equality in living conditions has never been achieved in practice (except on a very limited scale by small religious or secular communities), has never been seriously envisaged by political theorists or moralists (except in the context of describing attractive—or more often repulsive—utopias), and is today commonly perceived as incompatible with freedom. The pre-Marxist ideal—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his works”—would need to be applied, and for a very long time, within post-revolutionary societies. The truly egalitarian Marxist principle—“from each according to his capacities, to each according to his needs” —would only prevail (with any success) in the distant and quasi-utopian “end of history” referred to in communist theory. In short, equity is the most logical reference point in determining what is just and what is unjust with regard to living conditions and related matters within society. The lack of objective indicators makes this a daunting task, however. What constitutes the equitable distribution of income among social classes, occupations and age groups? From which perspective and on which basis are various manifestations of equity and inequity being assessed? What are the universal norms that allow the United Nations and other international organizations to make judgments and offer advice on the equitability of living conditions around the world? Equity is an inherently vague and controversial notion. Nonetheless, it is a pervasive preoccupation in all societies, both affluent and poor. Every society, even the laissez-faire variety, has engaged in the distribution and redistribution of income and wealth in some form, with policies generally favouring the poorest but sometimes benefiting the richest, and it is for this reason that issues of equity in living conditions remain central to the dialogue and debate on social justice.
1.7 Six important areas of inequality in the distribution of goods, opportunities and rights
Going a step further in endeavouring to define the more concrete elements requiring consideration in relation to the idea of social justice, the Forum identified six areas of distributive inequality corresponding to situations that, from the perspective of those directly concerned and of the “impartial observer”, require correction. Listed roughly in descending order in terms of their relative importance and in ascending order in terms of how difficult they are to measure, the highlighted areas of inequality are as follows:
• Inequalities in the distribution of income. The distribution of income among individuals or households at the local or national level, based on classifications such as socio-economic status, profession, gender, location, and income percentiles, is the most widely used measure of the degree of equality or inequality existing in a society. Though the statistical difficulties, particularly with regard to crosscountry comparisons, cannot be overemphasized, the distribution of income is relatively amenable to measurement, and if the resulting data are interpreted correctly and sufficient prudence is exercised, any problems that may arise are generally surmountable. With the availability of an income, individuals and households acquire the capacity to make choices and gain immediate access to a number of amenities. For most contemporary societies, income distribution remains the most legitimate indicator of the overall levels of equality and inequality.
• Inequalities in the distribution of assets, including not only capital but also physical assets such as land and buildings. There is normally a strong positive correlation between the distribution of income and the distribution of assets. Data from a variety of sources are generally available to Governments or independent statistical offices wishing to document what has traditionally been both a determinant of social status and political power and a source of political upheaval and revolution. As stated in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
“everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others”, and “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.
• Inequalities in the distribution of opportunities for work and remunerated employment. In both developed and developing countries today, the distribution of work and employment opportunities is the main determinant of income distribution and a key to economic and social justice. The distinction between work
Social Justice in an Open World:
The Role of the United Nations and employment is important; “work” encompasses all independent economic activities and what is called the spirit of entrepreneurship (an element of which is the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises), and more generally the economic opportunities offered by society to all those who wish to seize them. Statistics on the distribution of employment opportunities and unemployment are more readily available than data on, for instance, the proportions of young people from different socio-economic backgrounds who have managed to secure bank loans to start their own enterprises. As economies continue to diversify and become more and more service oriented, this sort of information will be increasingly useful. At the same time, the United Nations and its agencies, in particular the International Labour Organization (ILO), cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of people in the world work in order to survive. Discrepancies in working conditions among those in different professions and social groups, including immigrants, constitute part of this item.
• Inequalities in the distribution of access to knowledge. Considered in this context are issues relating to levels of enrolment in schools and universities among children from different socio-economic groups, as well as issues linked to the quality of educational delivery in various institutions and regions. Education, including technical training and adult education, is critical for ensuring access to decent work and for social mobility, and in most societies is a strong determinant of social status and an important source of self-respect. Because schools and universities are no longer the only dispensers of knowledge, and in the light of the emergence of new learning modes and tools such as the Internet, access to various technologies is also considered in assessing education-related inequalities. Although the distinction between information and knowledge remains valid and relevant, a number of statistical publications now present certain types of data together, including, for example, gender-disaggregated statistics on the ownership of television sets, book acquisitions, and primary and secondary enrolment ratios.
• Inequalities in the distribution of health services, social security and the provision of a safe environment. Traditional indicators of well-being such as life expectancy and child mortality rates, broken down by gender, socio-economic status and area of residence, are typically used along with other data to identify and measure inequalities in the distribution of amenities all societies endeavour to provide for their members. As is the case with education, issues relating to the availability, quality and accessibility of health and social services and facilities are critical but are difficult to analyse and measure. As stated in article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation … of the economic, social and cultural rights
Social Justice in an Open World:
The Role of the United Nations indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”. Social security, now often limited to social protection and safety nets, was a core component of the welfare state model adopted by countries around the globe after the Second World War. The sources of financing for social security benefits and the distribution of such benefits within a community remain pressing issues. Moving on to the last item, the right to a healthy and pleasant environment, not polluted by uncontrolled or predatory human activities, is considered by its proponents to constitute part of the third generation of human rights (the first generation having comprised civil and political rights and the second generation economic, social and cultural rights). Pollution, generated continuously by unregulated commercial activities and more dramatically and catastrophically through incidents such as the Chernobyl and Bhopal disasters, does not choose its victims. It is nevertheless true that rich and poor people have an unequal ca-pacity to ensure a safe environment. Differentials in personal security and safety could also logically be placed under the heading of inequalities in the provision of a safe environment. Crime, in its many forms, is growing in most societies, and groups at the lower end of the socio-economic scale continue to be disproportionately affected. The suffering and losses associated with internal conflicts and wars are also very unevenly distributed; it should be noted that the Forum hesitated on whether to place this increasingly critical issue here or in the next and last category.
• Inequalities in the distribution of opportunities for civic and political participation. This form of inequality is rarely discussed in international circles, perhaps because of its inherent complexity and sensitivity, and perhaps also because the practice of democracy is usually limited to the holding of elections; those who vote in presidential and parliamentary elections are implicitly considered participants in political life. Involvement in the electoral process notwithstanding, the Forum asserted that inequalities and inequities associated with political institutions and processes were key factors contributing to inequalities and inequities in society more generally. The way power is organized and distributed among society’s various institutions and the manner in which political processes are carried out have a profound influence on how citizens see and find their place on the social ladder and within in the social fabric. This does not mean that the unequal distribution of political power is always the direct cause of other forms of inequality. Simple cause-effect relationships do not explain this highly complex phenomenon in which personal and social factors are intertwined. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the distribution of power and how it is exercised by those who have it are at the core of the different forms and manifestations of inequality and inequity.
Social Justice in an Open World:
The Role of the United Nations
1.8 The need for further distinction and greater precision Before moving on to an assessment of recent trends in the realm of social justice and international justice, brief consideration should be given to two complementary factors relating to the conceptual framework for social justice sketched in this first chapter.First, the six types or areas of inequality reviewed above may be referred to as “vertical” inequalities. They derive from the division of an entire population—usually the inhabitants of a country but in some cases the members of a region, a city or an age group—along the lines of income or degree of political participation or other variables theoretically applicable to all. The Forum concentrated on this approach because of the importance traditionally attached to the distribution of income as an overall measure of inequality in a country. However, there are other types of disparities that might be termed “horizontal” inequalities, reflecting comparisons made between the situations of identified segments of the population differentiated on the basis of sex, racial or ethnic origin, or area of residence, for example. Using the earlier delineation of vertical inequalities as a guide, it would be important to establish some sort of typology of the forms of horizontal inequality that are generally considered and are deemed important from the perspective of social justice. The Forum was in a position to make only a few comments in this context, notably with regard to the progress made in the critical domain of equality between women and men.Second, further conceptual effort is required to examine the extent to which the three priority areas of equality/equity and the six areas of inequality that have been identified to lend operational content to the notion of social justice also apply to the developmental aspects of international justice. A number of the categories are clearly valid for both dimensions of justice, in particular the distribution of income, assets and access to knowledge, while others, such as the distribution of opportunities for political participation, would be applicable with some modifications in language—in this case a mention of the involvement of countries in the management of international organizations and other international arrangements such as the meetings of the Group of Eight industrialized countries. Other categories specifically relevant to issues of international justice in a fragmented and conflicted world also require consideration and could be addressed in the context of future discussion and debate. A relatively limited assessment of the current level of international justice is presented in chapter 2, while chapter 3 provides a more detailed examination of recent trends in social justice, considered within the framework established in chapter 1.
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ