Rawls and Walzer on Non-Domestic Justice

被引:1
作者
Caroline Walsh
机构
[1] University College,
[2] Dublin,undefined
关键词
Walzer; Rawls; cosmopolitanism; justice;
D O I
10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300303
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This article illuminates the relationship between John Rawls' and Michael Walzer's accounts of non-domestic justice by tracing its connection to their domestic relationship. More precisely, it (a) places the celebrated positional shifts that characterize the latter (i.e., as is generally accepted, Rawls took a hermeneutic ‘turn’, and Walzer a universalist one) within the context of the fundamental justificatory tension between their projects which endures: reason vs trust; and then (b) juxtaposes this justificatory tension and their non-domestic political prescriptions. Such contextualization is important to the clarification of the pair's non-domestic relationship since it enables the observation that despite this enduring justificatory tension these political prescriptions are remarkably similar.
引用
收藏
页码:419 / 436
页数:17
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
Beitz C(2005)Cosmopolitanism and global justice The Journal of Ethics 9 11-27
[2]  
Caney S(2001)Review article: international distributive justice Political Studies 49 974-997
[3]  
Carens J(2004)A contextual approach to political theory Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 117-132
[4]  
Doppelt G(1978)Walzer's theory of morality in international relations Philosophy and Public Affairs 8 3-26
[5]  
Doppelt G(1980)Statism without foundations Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 398-403
[6]  
Held D(2002)Law of states, law of peoples: three models of sovereignty Legal Theory 8 1-44
[7]  
Kelly E(2001)Justice and communitarian identity politics The Journal of Value Inquiry 35 71-93
[8]  
Kuper A(2000)Rawlsian global justice: beyond Political Theory 28 640-674
[9]  
Li X(2001) to a cosmopolitan law of peoples Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 21 2-8
[10]  
O'Neill O(2000)Tolerating the intolerable: the case of female genital mutilation Review of International Studies 26 45-66