Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. It is the antithesis of the "us vs.
The key point of difference between these two notions involves clarifying the entities among which justice is sought. In international justice the nation or state is taken as the central entity of concern and justice among nations or states is the focus.
In the domain of global justice, by contrast, theorists do not seek primarily to define justice between states or nations.
Rather they drill down through the state shell and inquire about what justice among human beings consists in. Global justice inquiries take individual human beings as of primary concern and seek to give an account of what fairness among such agents involves.
There are a range of actions that cut across states or involve different agents, relationships, and structures that might be invisible in an inquiry seeking justice among states exclusively.
Global justice analyses are not precluded from yielding state-level obligations; indeed, they typically do. However, they consider a wider array of possible agents and organizations that might have duties as well.
There are advantages associated with both types of inquiries. An important advantage of asking what states owe one another is that much international law presupposes the states system and requires states to perform various actions to promote justice.
In this way, responsibilities often appear to be clearly allocated to particular parties thus making it quite precise who ought to do what in our actual world.
One advantage of global justice inquiries is that we are not forced to take states as a fixed constraint and we can therefore consider a range of relevant relationships, capacities and roles that also structure our interactions and might be relevant to how we ought to conceptualize global responsibilities.
While asking about what individuals owe each other may well have implications for states and their obligations, a range of other agents and institutions may also have relevant justice obligations.
These responsibilities can become more visible when we explore what individuals owe each other. The two approaches have different strengths and can complement each other, but in contemporary debate they are often taken as rivals competing to provide the most plausible framework.
Since there is already an entry in this encyclopedia that focuses on international justice see the entry on international distributive justicethis entry will focus on the area of global justice.
In general, a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice on a global scale consists in and this often includes discussion of the following components: Theories of global justice aim to help us understand our world better and what our responsibilities are in it.
While some theorists aim purely at theoretical understanding, others hope also to provide an analysis that can be useful in practical policy making concerning global justice matters.
A problem is often considered to constitute a global justice problem when one or more of the following conditions obtain: Actions stemming from an agent, institution, practice, activity and so on that can be traced to one or more states negatively affects residents in another state.
Institutions, practices, policies, activities and so on in one or more states could bring about a benefit or reduction in harm to those resident in another state.
There are normative considerations that require agents in one state to take certain actions with respect to agents or entities in another. Such actions might be mediated through institutions, policies, or norms.
We cannot solve a problem that affects residents of one or more states without co-operation from other states. So, in general, a problem is one of global justice when the problem either affects agents resident in more than one state or the problem is unresolvable without their co-operation.
For the problem to be considered genuinely global rather than regional it should affect more than one regional area. Principles to Guide Behavior in International and Global Matters What sorts of duties of justice, if any, exist among human beings who do not reside in the same country?
If there are such duties, what grounds them?
Others maintain that the content of our duties to one another is best explored by examining alternative concepts not featured in the Rawlsian corpus, such as capabilities or human rights NussbaumPogge Here we consider very briefly only two further issues that have widespread current interest in the global justice literature: Humanitarian Intervention and Terrorism.
See the entry on terrorism for an extended analysis of such questions. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights.
As in all debates, there are always two sides. Armed Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian intervention is a use of military force to address extraordinary suffering of people, such as genocide or similar, large-scale violation of basic of human rights, where people’s suffering results from their own government’s actions or failures to act.
In particular, the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs appears to have been modified, thereby legitimizing UN/Great Power intervention for humanitarian purposes in conflicts of an essentially domestic nature (Harris, ).
'Humanitarian intervention', in its classical sense, may be defined as coercive action by one or more states involving the use of armed force in another state without the consent of its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing wide-.
• Humanitarian intervention/R2P - “State Sovereignty” vs. “Protection of other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Such a threat or use addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert.