Contrasting Theories of Global Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Global State ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
Normative Foundation ◽  
Justice Theories ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Global Health Justice

Theories of global justice fall into four main perspectives: realism, particularism, social contractarianism (society of states), and cosmopolitanism. But health justice remains largely unheeded in these justice theories. More recently, some theorists have turned to health; the perspective most frequently used to ground health obligations is the human rights view. Yet all these frameworks fall short of providing the necessary normative foundation for global health justice. Nor does global bioethics as a discipline address global health justice adequately. Health-sphere actors—global, state, and non-state—need to understand their interests more comprehensively. A more fully developed moral framework and ethical guidelines are essential if health-sphere actors are to tackle global health problems effectively.

Global Health Justice and Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Current System ◽  
Premature Death ◽  
Human Flourishing ◽  
Global Health Policy ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Shared Health Governance ◽  
Demand For Health ◽  
Global Health Justice

Critical and dangerous threats imperil global health. Serious health disparities, hazardous contagions that can circle our globalized planet in hours, a bewildering confusion of health actors and systems all combine in a kaleidoscopically fragmented, incoherent, and unjust global health enterprise. While a growing body of work in global justice and international relations explores moral issues and global governance, very little of it has linked principles of global health justice to governance to create a theory of global health. But the dangers confronting the world make a theoretical framework essential, to enable analysis of the current system and to ground proposals to reform it and align it with moral values. This book presents a global justice theory—provincial globalism (PG)—and links it with the theory of shared health governance (SHG) to offer an alternative to the prevailing modus operandi, which has manifestly failed to serve global health. The PG/SHG framework advances health capability, and specifically the capability to avoid premature death and preventable morbidity, as the proper goal of health systems and policy. This framework sees human flourishing as global society’s end goal and proposes an ethical demand for health equity as the criterion for evaluating global health policy and law. It examines the current actors in global health, assessing their strengths and weaknesses, and proposes assigning responsibilities to actors at all levels according to their functions and capabilities.

Just Global Health

2020 ◽  
pp. 138-162
Author(s):  
John Tasioulas ◽  
Effy Vayena
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Right ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Global Health Justice

This chapter offers an integrated account of two strands of global health justice: health-related human rights and health-related common goods. After sketching a general understanding of the nature of human rights, it proceeds to explain both how individual human rights are to be individuated and the content of their associated obligations specified. With respect to both issues, the human right to health is taken as the primary illustration. It is argued that (1) the individuation of the right to health is fixed by reference to the subject matter of its corresponding obligations, and not by the interests it serves, and (2) the specification of the content of that right must be properly responsive to thresholds of possibility and burden. The chapter concludes by insisting that human rights cannot constitute the whole of global health justice and that, in addition, other considerations—including the promotion of health-related global public goods—should also shape such policy. Moreover, the relationship between human rights and common goods should not be conceived as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, there sometimes exists an individual right to some aspect of a common good, including a right to benefit from health-related common goods such as programs for securing herd immunity from diphtheria.

scholarly journals Globalna sprawiedliwość a problem imigracji

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 41-54
Author(s):  
Łukasz Mirocha
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Immigration Policy ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Economic Dimension ◽  
Minimal Standard ◽  
Justice Theories

Global justice and the problem of immigrationModern legal philosophy provides us with two main types of global justice theories. Distributive or egali­tarian theories claim that justice requires striving to achieve the global equality from us not only in legal but also economic dimension. On the other hand, there are many theories focusing on providing and keeping only „minimal standard” i.e. human rights and questioning the global equality as an ideal. In the article I investigate which type of theories describes contemporary international relations in the most accurate way claiming that „minimal standard” theory does it and I also wonder which type is more legitimate. In my opinion, considerations devoted to the question of global justice give us a well-established background for further studies on immigration policy, especially in the context of recent EU frontiers incidents.

scholarly journals A Wake-Up Call in Our Upside-Down World: Three Starting-Points for Advancing Health Rights and Social Justice in a Post-Pandemic Future

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-267
Author(s):  
Alicia Ely Yamin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
Law Of Nature ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Rights ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Eduardo Galeano

Abstract What the world and our health systems and societies look like in the future depends on the meaning(s) we take from this pandemic, and in turn how we collectively respond. Before the pandemic, we were living in a scandalously unequal world in which one per cent owned as much wealth as the rest of the globe’s population. Worse yet, as Eduardo Galeano suggested, in our upside-down world, this injustice had come to be accepted as a law of nature. This calamity has ravaged the planet with added suffering—some from the disease itself and more that is the result of structural injustice and policies adopted in response. But the disruption in the lives of tens of millions, as well as in the organization of our societies, provides an opportunity for subverting a number of pillars of the upside-down world, and we in the overlapping fields of health justice and human rights have a responsibility to think and act boldly on transformative political possibilities now. In this essay, I set out three lessons and the implications of those lessons. First, we must hold governments to account for the disparate impacts not only of the virus but of governmental responses to the virus. Secondly, if we hope to emerge from this pandemic with meaningful social contracts, it is imperative that we understand health and health systems as integral to democracy. Thirdly, we need to reimagine the architecture of aid, as well as global health and economic governance.

Global Health Governance as Shared Health Governance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Global Health Governance ◽  
Health Governance ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Shared Health Governance ◽  
Global Health Justice

PG as a global health justice theory joins with the theory of SHG to apply justice principles to health governance. SHG rests on a genuine commitment among global health actors to achieve health justice as opposed to pursuing narrow self, group, or state interests alone. SHG elucidates standards of global and domestic responsibility and accountability for health equity. It proposes a common conceptual and policy framework with a set of distinct but complementary responsibilities for governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and individuals themselves. In the SHG framework, the state has duties to create conditions in which all individuals have the opportunity to be healthy and to reduce and prevent the shortfall between actual and potential health within their countries. Global actors have a duty to help shape conditions in which countries can develop and flourish and promote the health of their populations.

scholarly journals One Health: How Interdependence Enriches Veterinary Ethics Education

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Joachim Nieuwland ◽  
Franck L. B. Meijboom
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
One Health ◽  
Ethics Education ◽  
Veterinary Ethics ◽  
Contemplative Pedagogy ◽  
Health Justice ◽  
Global Health Justice

What does One Health imply for veterinary ethics education? In order to answer this question, we will first have to establish what One Health itself involves. The meaning and scope of One Health, however, cannot be established without reference to its values—whose health matters? Veterinary ethics education is well equipped to facilitate such an open-ended inquiry into multispecies health. One Health also widens the scope of veterinary ethics by making salient, among other fields, environmental ethics, global health justice, and non-Western approaches to ethics. Finally, One Health requires students to engage with interdependence. Discussing three levels of interdependence, we argue that veterinary ethics stands to benefit from a more contemplative pedagogy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document