Download - Introduction: Global Justice

•xiii

Preface:

INTROdUcTION TO THE TwO-VOLUmE cOLLEcTION

Forcenturies,moralreflectiononinternationalrelationswasfocusedonmattersofwarandpeace.Theseissuesarestillimportantandmuchdiscussed.SinceWorldWarII,however,otherthemeshavebecomemoreprominentduetoincreasingglobalinterdependenceandanerosionofsovereignty.TheUnitedNationsandtheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsreflecteffortstoestablishgloballyuniformminimumstandardsforthetreatmentofcitizenswithintheirowncountries.TheBrettonWoodsinstitutionsandlatertheWorldTradeOrganizationpowerfullyshapetheeconomicprospectsofcountriesandtheircitizens.Globalandregionalorganizations,mostnotablytheUNSecurityCouncilandtheEuropeanUnion,haveacquiredpoliticalfunctionsandpowersthatweretraditionallythoughttobelongtonationalgovernments.

ThesedevelopmentsareinpartaresponsetothehorrorsofWorldWarII.Buttheyarealsofueledbytechnologicalinnovationsthatlimitthe control governments can exert within their jurisdictions.Thus,industrializationhasmassivetransnationaleffectsthatnocountrycanavoid—effects on culture and expectations, on biodiversity, climate,oceans,andatmosphere.Newcommunicationstechnologiesmakeitmuchhardertocontroltheinformationavailabletoanationalpopulation.Andmanyofthegoodsdemandedbymoreaffluentconsumerseverywhererequireingredientsimportedfrommanyforeignlands.Thetraditionalconcernswiththejustinternalorganizationofsocietiesandthemoralrulesgoverningwarfareleaveoutsomehighlyconsequentialfeaturesofthemodernworld.

Aftersomedelay,academicmoralreflectionhasrespondedtothesedevelopments.Beginningintheearly1970s,philosophersandothershave

Global Ethics after Index added.13 13 12/17/2007 3:26:36 PM

xiv•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

askedprobingquestionsabouthowtheemergenceofapost‑Westphalianworldmodifiesandenlargesthemoralresponsibilitiesofgovernments,corporations, and individuals.Thesedebatesweredriven alsoby therealizationthatworldpovertyhasovertakenwarasthegreatestsourceofavoidablehumanmisery.Manymorepeople—some300million—havediedfromhungerandremediablediseasesinpeacetimeintheseventeenyearssincetheendoftheColdWarthanhaveperishedfromwars,civilwars,andgovernmentrepressionovertheentiretwentiethcentury.Andpovertycontinuesunabated,withsome830millionhumanbeingschroni‑callyundernourished,1100millionlackingaccesstosafewater,and2600millionlackingaccesstobasicsanitation;12000millionlackingaccesstoessentialdrugs;21000millionlackingadequateshelterand2000millionlackingelectricity;3774millionadultsbeingilliterate,4and218millionchildrenbetweenfive and seventeendoingwageworkoutside theirhousehold.5Suchseveredeficitsinthefulfillmentofsocialandeconomichumanrightsalsobringfurtherdeficitsincivilandpoliticalhumanrightsintheirwake.Verypoorpeople—oftenphysicallyandmentallystuntedduetomalnutritionininfancy,illiterateduetolackofschooling,andmuchpreoccupiedwiththeirfamily’ssurvival—cancauselittleharmorbenefittothepoliticiansandofficialswhorulethem.Suchrulershavefargreaterincentivetoattendtotheinterestsofagentsmorecapableofreciproca‑tion:theinterestsofaffluentcompatriotsandforeigners,ofdomesticandmultinationalcorporations,andofforeigngovernments.

Thegreatcatastropheofhumanpovertyisongoing,asistheannualtollof18milliondeathsfrompoverty‑relatedcauses,roughlyone‑thirdofallhumandeaths.6Threefactsmakesuchpovertydeeplyproblematic,

�. UNDP (United Nations Development Program), Human Development Report 2006 (Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 33 and �74. Also at hdr.undp.org/hdr2006.2. See www.fic.nih.gov/about/plan/exec_summary.htm.3. UNDP, Human Development Report 1998 (New York: Oxford University Press, �998), 49, http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/�998/en/pdf/hdr_�998_ch3.pdf.4. See www.uis.unesco.org.�. See ILO (International Labour Office), The End of Child Labour: Within Reach (Geneva: ILO 2006), Table �.�. Also at www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc9�/pdf/rep-i-b.pdf.6. See WHO (World Health Organisation), The World Health Report 2004 (Geneva: WHO Publications 2004), �20-2�. Also at www.who.int/whr/2004.


PREFACE•xv

morally.First,itoccursinthecontextofunprecedentedglobalaffluencethatiseasilysufficienttoeradicatealllife‑threateningpoverty.Although2735millionhumanbeingsarereportedtobelivingbelowtheWorldBank’s$2/daypovertyline,7and42percentbelowitonaverage,8theircollectiveshortfallfromthislineamountstolessthan1percentofthenational incomes of the high‑income countries with their 1 billionpeople.9Ashiftintheglobalincomedistributioninvolvingonly0.7percentofglobalincomewouldwhollyeradicatetheseverepovertythatcurrentlyblightsthelivesofover40percentofthehumanpopulation.Whiletheincomeinequalitybetweenthetopandbottomtenthofthehumanpopulationisastaggering320:1,10thewealthinequalityisninetimesgreaterstill.In2000thebottom50percentoftheworld’sadultstogetherhad1.1percentofglobalwealthwiththebottom10percenthavingonly0.03percent,whilethetop10percenthad85.1percentandthetop1percenthad39.9percent.11Severepovertytodayisavoid‑ableatacostthatistinyinrelationtotheincomesandfortunesofthe

7. See Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, “How Have the World’s Poorest Fared since the Early �980s?” World Bank Research Observer �9 (2004), �4�–69, ��3. Also at wbro.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/�9/2/�4�.8. Ibid., ��2 and ��8, dividing the poverty gap index by the headcount index.9. To count as poor by the $2/day standard, a person in the US must in 2007 live on less than $��20. (This figure is based on the official definition of the poverty line in terms of the purchasing power that $2.�� had in the US in �993 as updated via the US consumer price index at www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm). Ascribing much greater purchasing power to the currencies of poor countries than market exchange rates would suggest, the World Bank assumes that about one-quarter of this amount, $280 per person per year, is sufficient to escape poverty in typical poor countries. The 273� million global poor live, then, on approximately $444 billion annually and lack roughly $322 billion annually relative to the $2/day poverty line. This $322 billion is less than one percent of the gross national incomes of the high-income countries which, in 200�, summed to $3�,�29 billion. See World Bank, World Development Report, 2007 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 289.�0. Branko Milanovic, Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 200�), �08.��. James B. Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks, and Edward N. Wolff, The World Distribution of Household Wealth, World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), December �, 2006 (www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-�/wider-wdhw-launch-�-�2-2006/wider-wdhw-report-�-�2-2006.pdf), Table �0a.


xvi•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

affluent—verymuchsmaller,forinstance,thantheAllies’sacrificeinbloodandtreasureforvictoryinWorldWarII.

Second,theenormousglobalinequalitiesjustdescribedareincreas‑ingrelentlessly.BrankoMilanovicreportsthatrealincomesofthepoor‑est5percentofworldpopulationdeclined20percentinthe1988–93periodandanother23percentduring1993–98,whilerealglobalpercapitaincomeincreasedby5.2percentand4.8percentrespectively.12Forthe1988–98periodhefindsthat,assessedintermsofpurchasingpowerparities(PPPs),theGinimeasureofinequalityamongpersonsworldwideincreasedfrom62.2to64.1,andtheTheilfrom72.7to78.9.13Wecanconfirmandupdatehisfindingswithother,moreintuitivedata.TheWorldBankreportsthat,inthehigh‑incomeOrganisationforEco‑nomicCo‑operationandDevelopment(OECD)countries,householdfinalconsumptionexpenditurepercapita(constant2000USDollars)rose56.3percentinrealtermsoverthe1984‑2004globalizationperiod:from$11,582in1984to$18,103in2004.14WorldBankinteractivesoftwarecanbeusedtocalculatehowthepoorerhalfofhumankindhavefared,intermsoftheirreal(inflation/PPPadjusted)consumptionexpenditure,duringthissameperiod.15Herearethegainsforvariouspercentilesofworldpopulationlabeledfromthebottomup:

48.62% gainforthe 50th percentile(median)47.18% gainforthe 40th percentile42.20% gainforthe 30th percentile36.16% gainforthe 20th percentile33.72% gainforthe 15th percentile32.61% gainforthe 10th percentile31.92% gainforthe 7th percentile30.86% gainforthe 5th percentile30.44% gainforthe 3rd percentile22.87% gainforthe 2nd percentile9.64% gainforthe 1st percentile

�2. Milanovic, Worlds Apart, �08.13. Ibid.�4. See devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline; last accessed �0 June 2007��. See iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp. Full calculations are on file with the author. Unfortunately, this database excludes the popula-tions of the high-income countries and therefore permits no similarly detailed calculations for the top half of the human population.


PREFACE•xvii

Because economic inequality is increasing alsowithin thehigh‑incomecountries—intheUS,forexample,householdsinthetoponeper‑centoftheincomehierarchyhaveexpandedtheirshareofnationalpre‑taxincomefrom9percentto16percentsince197916—wecanconcludethatglobalinequalityisrisingacrosstheentireincomespectrum.Thesharesofthemostaffluentpercentilesofthehumanpopulationaregrowingfasterthantheaverage,thesharesofpoorerpercentilesaregrowingslower,andthesharesofthepoorestpercentilesaregrowingtheleast.

Third,conditionsoflifeanywhereoneartharetodaydeeplyaffectedbyinternationalinteractionsofmanykindsandbytherulesthatshapesuchinteractions.Inthemodernworld,thetrafficofinternationalandevenintranationaleconomictransactionsisprofoundlyinfluencedbyanelaboratesystemoftreatiesandconventionsabouttrade,investments,loans,patents,copyrights,trademarks,doubletaxation,laborstandards,environmental protection, use of seabed resources, and much else.Insofarasweparticipateinthissystemandsharesomeresponsibilityforitsdesign,wearemorallyimplicatedinanycontributionitmakestoever‑increasingglobaleconomicinequalityandtotheconsequentpersistenceofseverepoverty.

Theseplainfactsaboutthecontemporaryworldrenderobsoletethetraditional sharpdistinctionbetween intranationaland internationalrelations.Untilthetwentiethcentury,thesewereseenasconstitutingdistinctworlds,theformerinhabitedbypersons,households,corpo‑rationsandassociationswithinoneterritoriallyboundedsociety,thelatterinhabitedbyasmallnumberofactors:sovereignstates.Nationalgovernments provided the link between these two worlds. On theinsidesuchagovernmentwasauniquelyimportantactorwithinthestate,interactingwithpersons,households,corporationsandassocia‑tions,anddominatingtheseotheractorsbyvirtueofitsspecialpowerandauthority—itsinternalsovereignty.Ontheoutside,thegovernmentwasthestate,recognizedasentitledtoactinitsname,tomakebindingagreementsonitsbehalf,andsoon—itsexternalsovereignty.Thoughlinkedinthisway,thetwoworldswereseenasseparate,andnormativeassessmentsunquestioninglytookthisseparationforgranted,sharplydistinguishingtwoseparatedomainsofmoraltheorizing.

�6. David Leonhardt: “Larry Summers’s Evolution,” New York Times Maga-zine, �0 June 2007.


xviii•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

Today,verymuchmoreishappeningacrossnationalbordersthanmerelyinteractionsandrelationsamonggovernments.Foronething,therearemanyadditionalimportantactorsontheinternationalscene:internationalagencies,suchastheUnitedNations,theEuropeanUnion,theWorldTradeOrganization,theWorldBank,andtheInternationalMonetaryFund,aswellasmultinationalcorporationsandinternationalnon‑governmentalorganizations(NGOs).Interactionsandrelationsamongstatesandthesenewactorsarestructuredthroughhighlycom‑plexsystemsofrulesandpractices,somewithassociatedadjudicationandenforcementmechanisms.Thoseactorsandtheserulespowerfullyinfluencethedomesticlifeofnationalsocieties:throughtheirimpactonpollutionandclimatechange,invasivediseases,culture,andinformationtechnology,and(mostprofoundly)throughmarketforcesthatconditionaccesstocapitalandrawmaterials,exportopportunities,domestictaxbasesandtaxrates,prices,wages,laborstandards,andmuchelse.

Thisdoubletransformationofthetraditionalrealmofinternationalrelations—theproliferationoftransnationalactorsandtheprofoundinfluence of the systematic activities of these actors deep into thedomesticlifeofnationalsocieties—ispartofwhatisoftenmeantbythevaguetermglobalization.Ithelpsexplainwhy“global”isdisplacing“international”inbothexplanatoryandmoraltheorizing.Thistermino‑logicalshiftreflectsthatmuchmoreishappeningacrossnationalbordersthanmerelyinteractionsandrelationsamongstates.Italsoreflectsthattheverydistinctionbetweenthenationalandinternationalrealmsisdissolving.Withnationalborderslosingtheircausalandexplanatorysignificance,itappearsincreasinglyincongruousanddogmatictoinsistontheirtraditionalroleasmoralwatersheds.

Tocompletethepicture,letusnowattendtothedistinctionthatunderliesthedivisionofthisworkintotwovolumes.Therearedistinctwaysoflookingattheeventsofoursocialworld.Ontheonehand,wecanseesuchevents interactionally:asactions,andeffectsofactionsperformedbyindividualandcollectiveagents.Ontheotherhand,wecanseetheminstitutionally:aseffectsofhowoursocialworldisstruc‑turedandorganized—ofourlawsandconventions,practicesandsocialinstitutions.Thesetwowaysofviewingentaildifferentdescriptionsandexplanationsofsocialphenomena,andtheyalsoleadtotwodistinctkindsofmoralanalysisormoraldiagnostics.


PREFACE•xix

Takesomemorallysalientevent,forexamplethefactthatsomepar‑ticularchildsuffersfrommalnutrition,thatsomewomanisunemployed,orthatamanwashurtinatrafficaccident.Wecancausallytracesucheventsbacktotheconductofindividualandcollectiveagents,includ‑ingthepersonwhoissufferingtheharm.Doingsoinvolvesmakingcounterfactualstatementsabouthowthingswouldormighthavegonedifferentlyifthisorthatagenthadactedinsomeotherway.Wecanthensortthroughthesecounterfactualstatementsinordertodeterminewhetheranyofthecausallyrelevantagentsoughttohaveacteddiffer‑entlyandthusispartlyorwhollyatfaultfortheregrettableevent.Thiswillinvolveusinexaminingwhetheranysuchagentscouldhaveforeseenthattheirconductwouldleadtotheregrettableeventandcouldalsoreasonablyhaveavertedtheharmwithoutcausingsubstantialcoststothemselvesorthirdparties.Inquiriesofthiskindmightbereferredtoasinteractionalmoralanalysisorinteractionalmoraldiagnostics.

Often,regrettableeventscanalsobetracedbacktostandingfeaturesofthesocialsysteminwhichtheyoccur:toitsculture,forexample,ortoitsinstitutionalorder.Inthisvein,onemightcausallytracechildmal‑nutritionbacktohighimportdutiesonfoodstuffs,unemploymenttoarestrictivemonetarypolicy,andtrafficaccidentstothelackofregularmotorvehiclesafetyinspections.Doingsoinvolvesmakingcounterfac‑tualstatementsabouthowthingswouldormighthavegonedifferentlyifthisorthatsetofsocialruleshadbeendifferent.Wecanthensortthroughthesecounterfactualstatementsinordertodeterminewhetherthecaus‑allyrelevantrulesoughttohavebeendifferentandwhetheranyoneisresponsiblefordefectsintheserulesthatarepartlyorwhollytoblamefortheregrettableevents.Thiswillinvolveusinexaminingwhetherthoseresponsibleforthedesignoftherelevantrules—forinstance,membersofparliament—couldhaveforeseenthattheywouldleadtoharmandcouldreasonablyhavereformulatedtheruleswithoutcausingsubstantialharmelsewhere.Wemightrefertoinquiriesofthiskindasinstitutional moralanalysisorinstitutional moraldiagnostics.

Interactionalmoralanalysisemergedquiteearlyintheevolutionofmoralthought.Institutionalmoralanalysisismoredemanding,presup‑posinganunderstandingoftheconventional(ratherthannaturalordivine)natureofsocialrulesaswellasoftheir,oftenstatistical,compara‑tiveeffects.Evenamereeightyyearsago,thepoorandunemployedwere


xx•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

stilloftenseenaslazyanddelinquentmerelyonthegroundthatothersofequallyhumbleoriginshadrisenfromdishwashertomillionaire.Manypeoplethendidnotunderstandthestructuralconstraintsonsocialmobility:thatthepathwaystorichesarelimitedandthatthestructureofprevailingmarketsforcapitalandlaborunavoidablypro‑ducecertainbasicratesof(“structural”)unemploymentandpoverty.Nordid theyunderstand thatexisting ratesofunemploymentandpovertycouldbeinfluencedthroughintelligentredesignoftherules.Today,afterKeynes,theUSNewDeal,andvarioussimilarnationaltransformations,thesemattersarewellunderstood,andgovernmentsareheldresponsiblefortheirdecisionsregardinginstitutionaldesignandfortheeffectsofsuchdecisionsonthefulfillmentorfrustrationof human needs.This understanding has been—belatedly, yet veryadmirably—articulatedinphilosophythroughJohnRawls’sclassicATheoryofJustice.Throughthisgrandwork,Rawlshasfirmlyestablishedsocialinstitutionsasadistinctdomainofmoralassessmentandhasmarkedthisdomainterminologicallybyassociatingitwiththeterm(social)justice.Thisterminologicalinnovationhastakenhold,byandlarge,atleastinAnglophonephilosophy.Sothetermjusticeisnowpredominantinthemoralassessmentofsocialrules(laws,practices,socialconventions,andinstitutions)andusedonlyrarelyinthemoralassessmentoftheconductandcharacterofindividualandcollectiveagents.InthewakeofRawlsthedistinctionbetweeninstitutionalandinteractionalmoralanalysishascometobemarkedasadistinctionbetweenjusticeandethics.

WearequitefamiliartodaywiththefocusofRawls’sbook:withinstitutionalmoralanalysisappliedtotheinternalorganizationofonestate.Stillinitsinfancy,however,isinstitutionalmoralanalysisappliedbeyondthestate.Thistimelagishardlysurprising,seeingthattherealmofinternationalrelationsistraditionallyconceivedassomuchsmallerandmoresurveyablethanthevastandhighlycomplexinnerworkingsofamodernnationalsociety.Wedon’tneedinstitutionalmoralanalysis,itseems,foraworldofafewdozenrelevantactorsinwhich,whenbadthingshappen,itisusuallyprettyclearwhoseconductisatfault.AndRawlshimself,inhislateworkTheLawofPeoples,explicitlyshunnedsuchanalysisandconfinedhimselftodevelopinganddefendingasetofrulesofgoodconductforstates.


PREFACE•xxi

Thephenomenaofglobalization,describedabove,showsuchanaccounttobedeeplyinadequatetotheworldinwhichwelive.Itignoresthe increasingly important transnational actors other than states aswellastheincreasinglyprofoundeffectstransnationalrules,practices,andactorshaveonthedomesticlifeofnationalsocieties.Shapingtheenvironment (e.g., global markets) in which national societies exist,such transnational rules and practices deeply shape these societiesthemselves:howtheygovernandtaxthemselves,howtheyorganizeeducation,healthcare,agriculture,anddefense,andhowtheyregulateforeigninvestment,intellectualpropertyrights,foreigntrade.Someofthis influence isduetocompetitivepressuresandtransnationalbar‑gaining.Someofitworksbyaffectingdomesticincentivesandpowerdistributions:Internationalrulesthatrecognizeanypersonorgroupexercisingeffectivepowerinalessdevelopedcountryasentitledtosellitsnaturalresources,toborrow,andtoimportweaponsinitsnamemakeitextremelytemptinginresource‑richsuchcountriestoattempttotakepowerbyforce.Thesecountriesarethereforeverylikelytoexperiencecoup attempts, civil wars, and repressive (often military) rule. Suchforeseeableeffectsoftransnationalinstitutionalarrangementsaresurelyrelevanttotheirmoralassessment,butotherfactorsmayberelevantaswell:thewaysucharrangementswerecreatedoremerged,forexample,andthejudgmentsandinterestsofpresentparticipantsintheseinsti‑tutionalarrangements.Thediscourseaboutglobaljusticeisaboutthisquestion,howtoassesstransnationalinstitutionalarrangements.

Justiceassessmentoftransnationalinstitutionalarrangementscanhave important implications for the conduct of individual and col‑lective actors participating in such arrangements: for governments,corporations, associations, and individuals. Insofar as transnationalarrangementsarejust,theirparticipantshavemoralreasontosupportthemandtocomplywiththem.Insofarassucharrangementsareunjust,theirparticipantshavemoralreasontoseektheirreformandpossiblyalsotohelpprotectsomeoftheirvictims.Suchdutiesmust,however,beintegratedintoalargeraccountofmoralresponsibilities.Victimsofunjusttransnationalarrangementsinwhichweareparticipantsarenottheonlyoneswhohaveaclaimtoourmoralattentionasindividu‑als.Wealsofacevictimsofnaturalcalamities,victimsofhistoricalorcontemporarywrongs (wrongsof colonialism, slavery, andgenocide,


xxii•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

someperhapscommittedbyourowncountry),andvictimsofdomesticinjustice(associatedwithrace,gender,ethnicidentity,religionorsocialclass).Weconfrontglobalthreatsanddangers(proliferationofweaponsofmassdestruction,climatechange,newinfectiousdiseases)aswellaspersonalresponsibilitiestowardourfamily,friends,andprofessionalassociates.Andwehaveprojects,ambitions,needs,anddesiresofourownthatmilitateagainstdevotingourwholelivestoourvariousmoralresponsibilities.Thesituationofcollectiveagentsischaracterizedbyasimilarlydiverseandconfusingarrayofconflictingclaims.Governmentsmustbalance their special responsibilities toward theirowncitizensagainsttheirgeneralresponsibilitiestowardforeignnationalswhomayneedrefuge,protection,orassistance.Acorporationmustanalogouslybalanceitsspecialresponsibilitiestowarditsshareholders,customers,andthosewhoworkforitdirectlyorindirectlyagainstitsmoregen‑eralresponsibilitiestowardthecommunitiesinwhichitoperatesandtowardoutsiderswhomaybeaffectedbyitsactivitiesinmultifariousways.ReligiousorganizationsandNGOsmustsimilarlyintegratesuchmoregeneralandincreasinglyglobalresponsibilitieswiththeirspecialresponsibilitiestowardmembersandcontributorsaswellaswiththeirdefiningmissions.Foralltheseactors,gainingaclearmoralorientationisbecomingmoredifficultastheworldinwhichtheyoperatebecomeslargerandmoreinterdependent.Thediscourseaboutglobalethicsisabouthowsuchactorsshouldtakeintoaccountandfulfilltheirincreas‑inglycomplexandincreasinglytransnationalmoralresponsibilities.

Thetwo‑volumecollectionbeforeyoubringstogetherarepresen‑tativesamplingofthemostsignificant,mostoriginal,mostinfluentialwritingsmoral thinkershavecomposedon these issues in the threedecades following 1971.These essays are of continuing importancebecausetheyhavedevelopedthetermsinwhichtheseissuesaredebatedtoday.These essays have sharpened the concepts that dominate ourcurrentdiscussions,havecreatedthefaultlinesdividingpresentintel‑lectualcamps,andhaveinspiredorrevoltedthousandsoflaterwriters,students,andordinarycitizens.

Tobesure,thereisotherworkfromthesethreedecadesthatcouldplausibly have been included, as additions or substitutions. But wewantedamanageableandaffordablecollectionofuncutessaysandhaveworkedhardtoputtogetherasetofwritingsthat,together,optimally


PREFACE•xxiii

reflecttheformativedebates.Thedivisionoftheessaysintotwovolumesfollowsthedistinctionjustdrawnbetweenthetwomoralresponsibili‑tiesofgovernments,corporations,andindividuals.TheGlobalJusticevolumefeaturesessaysabouttheirpoliticalresponsibilitiesrelatingtoinstitutionaldesign.TheGlobalEthicsvolumefeaturesessaysabouttheirethicalresponsibilitieswithinthecontextoftheinternationalorderasitis.Evidently,notalltheselectedwritingsfallsquarelyononeortheothersideofthisdivide.Inhardcases,wewereguidedbytheaimofmakingeachvolumeasunifiedandself‑containedaspossible.

Aftermuchexperimentation,weconcludedthat,withineachvol‑ume,theessaysarebestpresentedinstraightchronologicalorderoftheirfirstpublication.Thisorderingcausesthematicleapsoccasionally,buttheessaysdonotdisplaysufficientuniformitiesofscopetosustainanyotherarrangement.Moreover,achronologicalreadingissurprisinglyilluminatingabouthowthemoraldebateaboutinternationalrelationsgraduallytookonitspresentshapeandstructure.Inanycase,readersandteacherswillfindtheirownselectionandorderingofthematerials.

For ease of use, we have inserted, in brackets, cross referenceswithinandacrossthetwovolumes.Crossreferenceswithinavolumeuse“herein”andcrossreferencestothecompanionvolumeuseitsfulltitleoritsacronym(GJSEorGESE).

Fromthebeginning,ithasbeenacentralconcernoftheeditorstomakethesetextsavailableatanaffordableprice.Wewantourcollectiontobewidelyaccessible—notmerelyintheaffluentregions,butespeciallyalsotostudentsinthepoorercountrieswhoarehugelyinterestedintheseissuesandalltoooftenlackelectronicaccesstojournals.Ithasnotbeeneasy.Butintheendwehaveachievedanincrediblylowsalespriceforvolumesofthissize.Forthis,theeditorsandreadershavetothank,firstandforemost,theCentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthicswhich,fundedbytheAustralianResearchCouncil,spansthreeinstitutions: Charles Sturt University, the University of Melbourne,andtheAustralianNationalUniversity.CAPPEhasabsorbedallthepermissionfeesasanethicalandhighlycost‑effectivewayofpromotingitsownmissionandhasalsofundedthecrucialassistancewereceivedfromDavidMollica,MattPeterson,TamaraShanley,andLingTongwhocompetentlyandcheerfullyconvertedourtablesofcontentsintotwoneatlyformattedvolumesoftextwithintroductorysummariesand


xxiv•GLOBALETHICS:SEMINALESSAYS

index.WemustfurtherthankGordonAndersonandRosemaryYokoiofParagonHousewhowerereadytoshareourvisionandworkwithuswhileotherpublishersdeclaredtheprojecteconomicallyunviable.While some publishers have made extortionate demands for theircopyrights,forcingustomakesubstitutionsforsomeessays(thoughnot authors),most copyrightholdershavebeenwilling towaive,orgreatlytoreduce,theirusualcommercialreprintingrates.Wehavegrate‑fullyreceivedcost‑freepermissionsfromBilingualPress,fromMaryMalin(Elsevier),fromtheJournalofPhilosophywithauthorsCharlesBeitz,AvishaiMargalitandJosephRaz, fromtheNewYorkReviewofBooks,fromEricaWetter(NewYorkUniversityPress),fromPeterOhlin(OxfordUniversityPress,US),fromDennisMoran(ReviewofPolitics),fromRichardRorty,fromSpringer,fromtheUnitedNationsUniversity’sWorld Institute for Development Economics Research(UNU‑WIDER),andfromUtahUniversityPress.Tounderscorethenoncommercialcharacterofthiscollection,theeditorshaveassignedallroyaltiestoOxfam.

NewYork,13June2007,ThomasPogge
