I have always been fascinated by the Rawl's Theory of Distributive Justice. During college days, I worked on this theory in light of International Trade and WTO. Here is my work.
Introduction
I
would like to proceed in the following manner. First of all, I would like to
discuss a bit about John Rawls and his theory on Distributive Justice.
Secondly, I would be discussing his two principles of Justice. Thirdly, I would
talk about how these principles can be given an international perspective and
if at all, they can be given an international perspective or not? My concluding
chapters would include the criticisms, the positive aspects and my personal
remarks on the topic.
In
my opinion, John Rawls Theory is a very controversial theory. The manner in
which John Rawls has talked about his theory includes only the municipal or the
local perspective. I do not know whether or not, would I be doing justice to
his theory by far fetching it to international arena especially to WTO and the
Multi-lateral Trading System?
For
the purposes of this paper, I am discussing only Rawls’s account of
Distributive Justice.
John Rawls
John Rawls was an American political philosopher
in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice
as fairness envisions a
society of free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an
egalitarian economic system[i]. He has written various books which talk about the concept of
Justice and more particularly, the concept and need of Distributive Justice.
His principle works are[ii]:
§ Political Liberalism. The John Dewey Essays in
Philosophy.
§ Collected Papers.
§ Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy.
§ Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy.
The Theory of Distributive Justice
John
Rawls talks about patterned conceptions of Distributive Justice which proceed
on the basis that there is some overall pattern of distributive justice that is
ought to be achieved. He advocates that his theory leads to fairness and his
principles are just and fair[iii].
To
simplify things, there are following concepts and notions discussed in his
theory.
1. Veil
of Ignorance
2. Reflective
Equilibrium
3. Original
Position
4. Principles
of Justice
Let
us discuss all of them in brief.
Veil of
Ignorance
It says parties to the original position know nothing about
their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of
society. The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that
one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to
him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the
original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights,
positions and resources in their society[iv].
Following is an excerpt from his book.
"no one knows his place in
society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune
in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence,
strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their
conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The
principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.[v]"
Reflective Equilibrium
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process
of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments[vi].
Original Position
Original Position is the
hypothetical society that Rawls has conceived in his theory. Rawls develops
what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an entirely and deliberately
artificial device he calls the Original
position in which everyone decides principles of justice from
behind a veil
of ignorance.
Rawls claims that parties that are
behind the veil of ignorance will formulate principles which are just and fair
because they do not know anything about themselves and thus, whatever decision
they take will be impartial and unbiased[vii].
Principles
of Justice
First Principle: Each person has
the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for
all;
Second Principle: Social and
economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
a. They are to be attached to
offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity;
b. They are to be to the greatest
benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
These
principles were previously different in his book “A Theory of Justice” but
later on, he molded his principles of Justice as mentioned above in his work
“Justice as Fairness”. Discussing these principles with relation to municipal
scenario will not be relevant to our topic. Hence, I am skipping that exercise.
I am directly jumping to the exercise where I would determine whether or not
these principles could be given an international perspective with relation to
WTO.
Distributive
Justice and WTO
Let
us discuss the first principle in relation to WTO.
First Principle: Each person has
the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for
all.
We
see that this principle talks about liberty. Liberty includes all the
principles such as freedom, rule of law etc. Apart from basic liberties, this
principle also talks about scheme of liberty and its compatibility. This
basically means that Rawls is not only concerned with formal equality or
liberty in a formal sense but also in a substantive sense. In other words, we
can say that justice must not be only done; it must be seen to be done.
Now,
if we look at WTO, we will see that WTO talks about LDCs, Developing Countries
and developed countries. It contains certain provisions which provide
relaxation to LDCs in various aspects of WTO[viii].
Thus, in a formal sense WTO takes into considerations needs of those who are
not developed. But in the real sense of the term, we see that not much has been
done for making sure that LDCs voice is heard on the WTO forum. Rights of LDCs
exist only on the paper.
If
we apply Rawls first principle, we will find that much needs to be done for the
poor countries whose voices are not being heard. Substantive Justice needs to
be done to them. They have equal basic liberties in theory but in reality, they
are not compatible with the scheme of liberties of all i.e. the developing and
the developed countries.
The
basic premise of this argument is that economic efficiency and power must not
be a criterion for providing rights and liberties to a nation.
Second
Principle
Second Principle: Social and
economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
a. They
are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity;
b. They
are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society
(the difference principle).
This
is a principle which talks about inequality. According to Rawls, inequalities
can exist only in these two conditions.
Coming
to the first proviso, we see that it is a corollary of the first principle
itself. It talks about fair equality of opportunity to be attached to offices
and positions. We observe that in International forums, a lot of developing and
LDC countries officials are being offered the highest offices. But the
important thing to see is that whether or not, the officials who are in that high
office are able to discharge their functions effectively? In my opinion, the
answer to this is in negative. This is because of the fact that even though LDC
and Developing countries are offered the highest offices, they are being
pressurized a lot[ix]. If
they take any decision which is not in favor of the Developed countries, their
parent country suffers in the long run. As a consequence, subsidies are
withdrawn and concessions are not given to that country.
Another
thing to see is that all the countries have access to the Dispute Settlement of
WTO. However, the cost of litigation in this system is abnormally high. Thus,
even though they have access, they are not able to realize the benefits because
of high costs which they cannot afford[x].
Another
important point to note is that the manner in which officials of developing
countries and LDC are appointed is a kind of trade-off in itself. It is done in
order to appease the ruling class of that developing country or LDC so that
developed countries can ask for concessions from that country. Thus, there is
no bona fide intention of uplifting these LDCs and bringing them to a level
playing field. Hence, the purpose of the first proviso is also forfeited in WTO[xi].
Let
us come to the second proviso i.e. the indifference principle. Intellectuals
have argued that there is a need for an international indifference principle.
If we apply this principle to WTO, we see that concessions, subsidies and
favors are imperative for developing countries and LDCs on a case to case
basis. Rawls says that if such favors are given to the least advantaged class,
they would reach a level playing field in the long run. Thus, this principle is
a fair one since it removes the unjust in the society[xii].
However,
if we talk about international perspective, this principle might not hold much
ground. It is the developing countries and LDCs which have most of the natural
resources[xiii]. The
developed countries give concessions and favors to LDCs in order to exploit
their natural resources. This is especially true in the African Countries.
Developed Countries set up NGOs and send their governmental missions in the
name of uplifting the countries position and improving their living standard.
But these NGOs act as intelligence agencies for the developed countries. These
NGOs in the name of social justice programs collect valuable information about
the LDCs and send them to these developed countries. With the help of this
information, the developing countries assess the political climate of that
country and it further helps them in exploiting these small countries.
But
in spite of all these things and the ulterior motives, the developing countries
and LDCs are getting benefitted a lot. The cost that they have to pay is
obviously high and painstaking. But at least something is being done. Thus,
there is a need for transparency when we talk about implementing inequalities.
The hidden and ulterior motives must not exist while carrying on such programs.
Criticisms
1. It is yet to be explained in a
satisfactory way why the relative position of the least advantaged is more
important than their absolute position.
2. Trade Liberalization is not always
good for a country. It might wipe off the small players in that country. This
is big disadvantage because multinationals try to hijack the economy of that
country. A classic example is that of Egypt where local textile players were
wiped off because of liberal trade policies and created a widespread social
harm in the society[xiv].
3. Libertarians object that the
Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty. For
instance, the Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation to the
poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral
taking of just holdings.
4. Amartya Sen critiques and attempts to revitalize A Theory of Justice in his book, The Idea of Justice[xv]. He defends the basic notion of justice as fairness but
attacks the notion that the two principles of justice emerging from the
Original position are necessary. Sen claims that there are multiple possible
outcomes of the reflective equilibrium[xvi] behind
the veil of ignorance.
5. Dworkin says that hypothetical
contracts are not contracts. Why should we care about hypothetical agreements?
6. These
principles were originally meant for the local or municipal application. The
implications of applying this theory to International perspective are still not
clear.
7. Right
now most of the developing countries and LDCs are in a transition phase from a
feudalistic economy to an industrial economy. Thus, by applying these
principles, long term benefit is assured but the present generations shall have
to suffer.
Positive Aspects
1. WTO is an international forum and
applying this theory to an international forum means that we are talking about
fairness and justice. This is a right step in the right direction. However, the
manner in which it is being implemented needs to change[xvii].
2. Justice as Fairness dictates for wealthier
states in response to
inequality. Thus, it creates an obligation which will benefit the poorer
nations.
3. Trade Liberalization and forums such as WTO will eventually led to
more transparency and fairness in the policies of a country[xviii].
4. This will also lead to decrease in corruption because the society
will become more and more industrial and in an industrial society everyone gets
what his/her worth his.
My Comments and Conclusion
I have a lot of doubts regarding the applicability of this
theory. Firstly, I do not agree with the concept of the veil of ignorance. I
feel it is a utopian concept and has no relevance in the present day context.
It is not much possible to make WTO a forum where the countries know nothing
about themselves. Today is an age of information. It is definitely absurd to
think about veil of ignorance today.
Also, Rawls thinks that members of his society will not make
any errors in reasoning[xix] because
they will be clouded by veil of ignorance and this is will eventually lead to a
just society. This is again indigestible because there cannot be any veil of
ignorance in a forum like WTO and secondly, every country will think about
his/her own interest first. They have their own problems to address.
Giving too much subsidies and favors to small countries has
caused a serious political upheaval in the developed countries. The citizens of
these countries are asking when there are problems in their own nation, how can
they think about helping others?
I agree with the theory in principle and its application to
International Arena especially to WTO. This is because social and economic
rights of individuals as well as countries are very important. The indifference
principle can address this issue. However, the form has to change. In the
present form, the developed countries are only exploiting the smaller
countries.
[viii] A good example is that of Patent
issues in access to AIDS drugs in Kenya. This issue has been discussed in a WTO
sponsored case study. It explains how laws can be relaxed in certain situations
such as that of Kenya’s AIDS drugs. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case19_e.htm
[ix] A good example is that of ROKS Cheonan sinking case. In this case, Ban Ki
Moon, the UN Secretary General has been accused of bias as he asked for action
against North Korea acting as a puppet of US and promoting his country’s
interests.
[x] A WTO Sponsored Case Study talks
about Dispute Settlement between Developing Countries between Argentina and
Chilean Price Bands. The paper discusses the abnormally high cost of litigation
and its time consuming nature. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case1_e.htm
[xi] A Conference sponsored by
Commonwealth Secretariat talked about Implementation of UN Convention against
Corruption and challenges faced by it. This conference discussed how
appointments in International Organizations are based on Political Loyalty
rather than merit and the mala fide intention involved in such appointments. http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Law/ilanticorruption.pdf
[xii] Richard
Arneson, Rawls, Responsibility and
Distributive Justice, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[xiii] A good example is that of the
word “diamond” which hardly conjures images of peace and prosperity in the
context of Sierra Leone, and oil has been more curse than blessing for Angola,
Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, and many others.
[xiv] Thomas, Chantal, "Democratic Governance, Distributive
Justice and Development" (2008). Cornell Law Faculty Publications.
[xv] Amartya Sen, The Idea of
Justice, Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.
[xvii] Fairness in the WTO Trading
System, Andrew G. Brown, Amherst, MA and Robert M. Stern, University of
Michigan, 2009.
[xviii] Thomas, Chantal, "Democratic Governance, Distributive
Justice and Development" (2008). Cornell Law Faculty Publications.
[xix] John Rawls, The
Law of Peoples: with "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited." Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999
No comments:
Post a Comment