Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Contents Page#
1 A Changing World 1
2 One Atmosphere 14
3 One Economy 51
4 One Law 106
5 One Community 150
6 A Better World? 196
disclaimer: I have not proofread this summary, nor am I a native English-speaker. Therefore, some
sentences might make no sense to some. This should not be considered a definitive summary, just
something I did to help me study for my exam. I hope you can overlook any flaws, as I provide this
summary to you free of charge.
Chapter 1: A Changing World
page 1-13
Globalization can have a wide variety of aspects. Singer names two examples: the terrorist attacks on
9/11 and the emission of carbon dioxide from SUV's. The first brought instant death to many, the
second contributes to global warming which will slowly kill much more people world wide, destroying
crops in Africa, rising sea levels and spreading tropical diseases. George W. Bush, the (then) 'leader' of
the globalized world, stated: We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things
first are the people who live in America. Fuel efficiency standards in the US haven't been raised since
1985.
It is not just Bush who held this 'America-first' point of view; his father stated at the 1992 Earth
Summit the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation. Clinton wasn't prepared to risk the life of
American soldiers in the Balkan to reduce the number of civilian casualties, so they bombed it and
caused about 500 civilian deaths. However, no American soldier had been killed.
Timothy Garton Ash suggests there is a strong ethical case for saying that it is wrong for leaders to
give absolute priority to the interests of their own citizens, as the value of the life of an innocent human
being does not vary according to nationality (p.4). However, political leaders are not bound to consider
the citizens of other nations, just like parents aren't bound to provide for someone else's children. There
is no world political community, just nation-states, and the leaders of those nation-states need to protect
their own citizens.
Another question this poses is: is the division of the world's people into sovereign nations a
dominant and unalterable fact of life? A calculation by the UN points out that 2,500 trained military
personel could have saved 800,000 Rwandese from genocide. Kofi Annan urged the world cannot
stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place. [] We need
legitimate and universal principles on which we can base intervention. This means a redefinition of
state sovereignty.
When in 1914 the Austro-Hungarian crown prince was murdered, the Austrian government made
demands to the Serbs that were labeled vicious and tyrannical by other countries. However, when the
US made roughly the same demands to the Taliban after 9/11, the security council endorsed it. World
leaders now accept that every nation has an obligation to every other nation of the world to suppress
activities within its borders that might lead to terrorist attacks in other countries.
Implicit in the term globalization rather than the old internationalization is the idea that we are
moving beyond the era of growing ties between nations and are beginning to contemplate something
beyond existing conception of the nation-state.
In his work A Theory of Justice (eds: veil of ignorance), Rawls assumes that the people making
the choice (of what is justice) all belong to the same society and are choosing principles to achieve
justice within their society. When he concludes people seek to improve the conditions of the 'worst off',
while limiting the conception of 'worst off' to those within one's own society. People must be ignorant
of their own citizenship to change the conditions of the 'worst off' in the world. Rawls's model is an
international order, not a global order.
Technology changes everything, as Marx stated. Not only do we buy fresh vegetables from Africa,
planes bring illegal immigrants looking for a better existence. Advanced communication spreads the
nature of international trade from actual goods to skilled services. When capital is internationally
mobile, raising taxes risks triggering a flight of capital to other countries. When you wear the 'Golden
Straitjacket' (a set of policies that involve freeing up the private sector of the economy, shrinking
bureaucracy, keeping inflation low, and removing restrictions on foreign investment Thomas
Friedman) the differences between major parties shrink to differences over minor ways in which the
jacket might be adjusted.
Marx argued we never reject advances in the means by which we satisfy our material needs, hence
history is driven by the growth of productive forces. He also believed that a society's ethic is a
reflection of the economic structure to which its technology has given rise.
The thesis of this book is how well we come through the era of globalization will depend on how
we respond ethically to the idea that we live in one world. For the rich nations not to take a global
ethical viewpoint has long been seriously morally wrong. Now it is also, in the long term, a danger to
their security.
Chapter 2: One Atmosphere
page 14-50
the problem
there can be no clearer illustration of the need for human beings to act globally than the issues
raised by the impact of human activity on our atmosphere. The threat of CFCs to the ozone layer was
discovered in the 1970s. Causing skin cancer and the rapid growth of algae. Getting rid of CFCs was
merely the curtain raiser, the main event is climate change, or global warming.
The reported consequences will be that between 1990 and 2100, temperatures will rise between 1.4
and 5.8 degrees celcius. It is possible the changes could be enough to reach critical tipping points at
which the weather systems alter or the directions of major ocean currents such as the gulf stream,
change. This could have variable effects for humans:
- As oceans become warmer, hurricanes and tropical storms that are now largely confined to the tropics
will move farther from the equator, hitting large urban areas that have not been built to cope with them.
This is a prospect that is viewed with great concern in the insurance industry, which has already seen
the cost of natural disasters rise dramatically in recent decades.
- Tropical diseases will become more widespread (eds: e.g. Malaria)
- Food production will rise in some regions, especially in the high northern latitudes, and fall in others,
including sub-saharan Africa.
- Sea levels will rise by between 9 and 88 cm.
Rich countries would, at a high cost, be able to defend themselves from these effects. In Bangladesh, 70
million peoples will be affected by rising tides, either by losing their lands or losing their lives. The
same goes for China and Egypt. Heat stress could kill a lot more people, but on the other side of the
spectrum, deaths from winter cold could decrease.
The cost for animals and biodiversity would be most severe. Where possible, animals would
migrate along with their favourite climate. However, for some regions this is impossible, for instance in
Australia. All of this forces us to think about our ethics, our value system evolved in circumstances in
which the atmosphere, like the oceans, seemed an unlimited resource.
Time-Slice Principles
The historical view puts forth that the developed nations are to blame. In their defense, at the time they
put most of their greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they did not know of the limits to the capacity
of said atmosphere to absorb them. It would therefore be fairer, it may be claimed, to make a fresh start
and set standards that look to the future rather than the past. Although, even here, one could argue that
ignorance is no excuse and a stricter standard of liability should prevail, especially since the developed
nations reaped the benefits of their early industrialization.
Fairness: A Proposal
Singer supports the principle of equal per capita future entitlements, due to its simplicity and its
suitability to political compromise. By saying forget about the past, lets start anew the pure equal per
capita share principle is a lot more favorable to the developed nations than a historically based principle
would be.
The fact that 178 nations (excluding the US) have now indicated their intention to ratify the Kyoto
protocol makes the position of the US odious from an ethical perspective. The claim the protocol does
not require the developing nations to do their share does not stand up to scrutiny. Americans are really
demanding that the poor nations of the world commit themselves to a level that gives them in
perpetuity, lower levels of greenhouse gas production per capita than the rich nations have.
There is a mechanism can make the transition towards capped greenhouse gas emissions that would
make it much easier for industrialized countries; emissions trading. This could provide great benefits
for developing nations. The point of the protocol is not to punish nations with high emissions, but to
produce the best outcome for the atmosphere. Emissions trading gives us a better chance at achieving
its goals.
Since global emissions trading is both possible and desirable, it also answers two objections to
allocating greenhouse emissions quotas on the basis of equal per capita shares. It answers the objection
raised when disccussing a utilitarian approach to these problems (net happiness). Second, global
emissions trading answers the objection that equal per capita shares would lead to inefficient
production because countries with little industrialization would be able to continue to manufacture
goods even though they emit more greenhouse gases per unit of economic activity than highly
industrialized nations would have to cut back on their manufacturing capacity.
There are two objections to emissions trading, one scientific and one ethical. Scientific: we do not
have the means to measure emissions accurately for all countries, so it is impossible to put quota's in
place. Ethical: In the absence of any legitimate government that government that can receive payment
for quota (due to corruption, authoritarian gov, etc) payment can be received by an institution
governerd by the UN.
After the 1999 Seattle WTO-summit (which had a lot of protests), politicians and capitalists swiftly
dismissed the protesters as falling into two groups: firstly those who had good intentions in their
concern to protect the environment or help the world's poorest people but were nave and misled by
their emotions; and those who, under the cynical guise of defending human rights and the environment,
were seeking to protect their own well-paid jobs in inefficient industries by high tariff barriers that raise
costs for domestic consumers and leave workers in less developed countries stuck in dire poverty (i.e.
against free-trade).
Bill Clinton and Tony blair were quick learners, stating that genuine issues had been raised and they
needed serious consideration. However, there was no real discussion of what those issues might be or
how they might be resolved. Globalization was seen as unquestionable. The alternative was just
globaphobia. Endlessly repeated rituals of street theater (eds: demonstrations) do not provide
opportunities for the kind of discussion that is needed.
1. The WTO places economic considerations ahead of concerns for the environment, animal welfare,
and even human rights.
2. The WTO erodes national sovereignty
3. The WTO is undemocratic
4. The WTO increases inequality; or (a strong charge) it makes the rich richer and leaves the world's
poorest people even worse off than they would otherwise have been.
The WTO was established during the Uruguay Round of talks held by the GATT, and came into
existence in January 1995. By January 2002 it had 144 member nations, accounting for 97% of the
world trade. It is foundated by the belief in specialization of production. If one member nation believes
that it is disadvantaged by actions taken by another member nation that are breach of the 30.000 page
rule book, the first nation can make a complaint. If the offending nation keeps their practices up, the
WTO can even impose tariffs against its own goods (i.e. goods produced by the offending nation)
In 1991 the EU agreed to prohibit the sale of furs that had come from animals caught in steel-jaw
leghold traps (bear traps). These traps crush and hold the animal's lag, holding the animal until the
trapper returns (often days). Nocturnal animals are so terrified of daylight they often chew of their
own leg, or they die of dehidration. It is however, impossible to tell if a pelt has come from an
animal caught in one of these traps or a relatively humane method. Thus, the EU banned the import
from countries that had not banned the steel-jaw traps. US, Canada and Russia filed complaints
with the WTO, and the EU caved in. (Similarly, the EU banned cosmetics tested on animals, but
was advised that this would be in breach of the WTO rules. The ban was never implemented)
The WTO decisions rest on the claim that the product (the fur, the cosmetics) is the same product as
other products allowed to be sold in the country. The fact they are the outcome of a different process is
irrelevant. Why this is, might be hinted by the tuna-dolphin example: if the US arguments were
accepted, then any country could ban imports of a product from another country merely because the
exporting country has different environmental, health and social policies from its own. [] The door
would be opened to a possible flood of protectionist abuses.
The argument assumes that the value of preventing such a flood of protectionist abuses is greater
than the value of protecting the environment, animals, and community peace of mind. Import
prohibitions against goods produced in ways that violate human rights (for example, by using forced
labor, or pushing indigenous people off their land) would also fail to pass the test of being applied to a
product, rather than a process. This will drastically curtail the means by which a nation can protect its
values.
The first test should be whether the measure taken to protect the environment or animal welfare
deals evenhandedly with the nation's own producers and with foreign producers. If it does, then the
measure is acceptable, and any nation seeking to have it invalidated should be required to show that the
environmental or other objectives the measure purports to aim at could reasonably have been achieved
without restricting trade to the extent that the measure does restrict it.
Closing the door for a possible flood of protectionist abuses also means the inability to protect
from products which come from dumping toxic wastes into the ocean, cruelty to animals or denying
workers the right to unionize.
The undermining of GATT's Article XX
Notwithstanding the use that the WTO disputes panels have made of the product/process distinction,
one article of the GATT appears to give explicit blessing to import bans undertaken for various
purposes, including the protection of the environment. Article XX reads as follows:
General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute
a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions
prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;...
(g) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made
effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption
The most natural reading of this article would give a country several grounds on which it could prohibit
the importation of goods obtained in ways that threaten dolphins or cause great suffering to animals.
There are two possible justifications for the product/process rue. The first is the claim that to
prohibit a product because of the way in which it is made is to attempt to exercise extraterritorial
jurisdiction. The second is that to depart from the product/process rule may make it more difficult to
distinguish genuine measures for protecting the environment from disguised forms of protectionism.
The november 2001 summit saw signs of a willingness to reconsider the rules ensuring that free
trade trumps other values. The meeting allowed for the inclusion of, in the next round of trade talks,
discussions on non-trade concerns in agriculture. One of these concerns is maintaining the economy
of rural areas where the local economy depends on small farms that would not be able to withstand
competition from other countries where farming is on a much larger scale. It remains to be seen
whether values other than that of free trade will be given real weight.
The Fourth Charge: Taking from the Poor to Give to the Rich (p.77)
Against the charge the WTO is a 'Robin Hood-in-reverse', GW Bush echoed the line taken by most
advocates of global free trade when he said in a speech at the world bank: Those who protest free
trade are no friends of the poor. Those who protest free trade seek to deny them their best hope for
escaping poverty.
Although critics agree that the WTO has done more to help global corporations than to help the
poor, the facts are not easy to sort out (eds: no counterfactual?), and on some aspects of this question,
leading opponents of the WTO do no speak with one voice. Criticism differs from not creating a level
playing field to the poor nations to the loss of jobs to Canada and Mexico by the US through free
trade.
Another relevant question is whether free trade means cheaper goods, and whether this is good for
the poor. Liberalization of trade in India means that more food is exported, and as a result food prices
have doubled and the poor had had to cut their consumption in half. On top of that, cheap subsidized
imports of soybeans are dumped on the Indian market, thus worsening the country's balance of
payments situation and closing small independent Indian farms due to bankruptcy. These claims
(doubled food prices, cheaper imported soybeans) however, seem conflicting. The critic, Vandana
Shiva, doesn't give an explanation.
In trying to asses the impact of recent trade reforms, it is useful to distinguish two questions:
About 1.2 Billion people live under the poverty line, of which 826 million lack adequate nutrition,
more than 850 million are illiterate and lack almost all acces to even the most basic sanitation. In rich
countries, >1% of children dies before the age of 5. In the poorest, >20% dies. 30,000 children die
every day from preventable causes.
It is a commonly acknowledged fact that the gap between the rich and poor nations has widened.
Even the WTO stated in 1999: It is an empirical fact that the income gap between poor and rich
countries has increased in recent decades. The gap between rich and poor nations grew, between 1820
and 1960, 1.66% annually. Between 1990 and 1997, the gap grew on average 3% per year. There are a
certain set of problems, however, comparing average wages.
Branko Milanovic put it on the basis of the research he has done this way: It is impossible to aver
whether inequality is really increasing or whether we see just a temporary spike, or indeed whether the
change in the coefficients is statistically significant bearing in mind numerous and serious data
problems.
On theoretical grounds, there is some reason to believe that open markets and free trade should
increase economic welfare as a whole. The theory finds support in an 'Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development' (OECD) study showing that when corporations go into foreign
countries, they generally pay more than the national average wage. But information about average
wages does not alleviate concerns about poverty, as long as inequality is increasing.
World Bank researchers found that globalization benefits the majority, but its burden falls on the
poorest 40%, for whom openness lead to a fall in economic growth. They conclude at least in the short
run, globalization appears to increase poverty and inequality.
Judgement (p.90)
Firstly, the WTO does place economic considerations ahead of environmental protection. Second, the
WTO does not formally impair sovereignty, but in practic they reduce the scope of national
sovereignty. Third, the WTO is undemocratic in theory and practice. The fourth charge, that it makes
the poor poorer and the rich richer, is not proven. Available evidence is insufficient to convict either
globalization or the WTO for that charge. This assessment is based on the actions of the WTO up to the
November 2001 Doha summit.
Though, how many people is a 'large number'? How serious does the bodily or mental harm have to be?
Who will decide when conditions of life that bring about the physical destruction of large numbers of
people have been deliberately inflicted upon them? A Canadian report cut down the criteria for military
intervention to just two:
A. Large loss of life, actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either
of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation; or,
B. Large-scale ethnic cleansing, actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced
expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
Singer proposes a fourth strategy, which builds on the discussion in the previous chapter questioning
the standard view of what it takes for a government to be legitimate, the democratic view proposes that
a government has to have popular support in order for it to be legit. If it would repress it's citizens, it
wouldn't gain support, wouldn't be seen as legitimate, and wouldn't get a seat at the UN. If it would use
violence against its own people, there would be no constraints holding intervention back. This could
increase the instances of war, but this risk must be weighed against the prospect of supporting
democracy and reducing the number of governments that are little more than gangs of brigands
pillaging a country. Consequentialist arguments would still apply, war causes immense suffering and
loss of life, and should always be used as a last resort.
A classical, or average, utilitarian principle would not be accepted by peoples, since no people
organized by its government is prepared to count, as a first principle, the benefits for another
people as outweighing the hardships imposed on itself.
This claim is true at the level of sociological description of peoples organized as governments in
existing societies (eds: democracy government = chosen by a population, therefore the government
needs to work for said population in order to stay in power). But Rawls rules out the possibility of
people accepting this principle in the future, if they were choosing impartially. Another strange aspect
is Rawls's readiness to invoke, against the idea of economic redistribution between nations, arguments
that could easily be brought against economic redistribution between individuals or families within the
same nation.
He does urge that well-ordered peoples have a duty to assist burdened societies, those that lack the
political and cultural traditions, the human capital and know-how, and, often, the material and
technological resources needed to be well-ordered. This duty extends only to the requirement of
assistance to help the societies to become well-ordered, by which he means a society that is designed to
advance the good of its members and is effectively regulated by a public conception of justice.
Something Rawls sees as beneficial is a change of culture, because he sees no nations with resources
so scarce that it could not become well-ordered.
Rawls states he shares Beitz and Pogge's goals of attaining liberal or decent institutions, securing
human rights and meeting basic needs but [those goals] are covered by the duty of assistance.
Critics state Rawls is more concerned with the legitimacy of global coercion than he is with the
arbitrariness of the fates of citizens of different countries. Economic concerns for individuals play no
role in Rawls's laws for regulating international relations. He covers no options for the billion people
living in poverty.
In the fifth century BC, the Chinese philosopher Mozi asked and answered as question: What is the
way of universal love and mutual benefit? It is to regard other people's countries as one's own. Greek
Diogenes, when asked from what country he was from, said: I am a citizen of the world. John
Lennon sang Imagine there's no countries, Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world (eds: John
Lennon also hit his first wife).
Up until recently, these were the thoughts of idealists, but lately we have grown to be a global
community. Almost all nations have agreed on binding their greenhouse gas emissions. The WTO,
World Bank and IMF are global institutions that try to take on some functions of global economic
governance. An International Criminal Court is giving the world justice. Changing views on military
intervention for humanitarian purposes show we are in the process of developing a global community,
prepared to take on responsibilities to protect the citizens of states that can or will not protect them
from harm or death.The World's leaders have recognized that relieving the plight of the world's poorest
nations is a global responsibility, although their deeds are yet to match their words.
When different nations led more separate lives, it was more understandable for citizens to think
they owed no obligation to help foreigners. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the hallmark of state
sovereignty, until nations started to fight again. Though we may look back with nostalgia, we should
not regret its passing. Instead we should be developing the ethical foundations of the coming era of a
single world community.
There is one great obstacle to further progress in this direction. Participation of the US in many
agreements (Greenhouse gasses, International court, foreign aid, etc) is holding us back. It will
probably be shamed into joining in. If it does not, it risks falling into a situation in which it is
universally seen by everyone (except Americans) as the world's rogue superpower. If the US wants
support from other nations in, for instance, its war on terror, it cannot afford to be seen that way.
As more and more issues increasingly demand global solutions, the extent to which any state can
independently determine its future diminishes. Institutions for global decision-making therefore need to
be strengthened. This leeds to a direction of a directly elected global legislature, along the lines of the
EU. There is however little support for such ideas at present. At worst, it would become a global
tyranny, unchecked and unchallengeable. How to prevent global bodies becoming either dangerous
tyrannies or self-aggrandizing bureaucracies is a serious question. The EU has the principle of
subsidiarity (decisions should always be made at the lowest level capable of dealing with the problem),
which is still being tested but if proven effective it could work for the global community.
To rush into world federalism would be too risky, but we could accept the diminishing significance
of national boundaries and take a pragmatic, step by step approach to greater global governance. There
is a good case for global environmental and labor standards.
The 21st century faces the task of developing a suitable form of government for a single world. It is
a daunting moral and intellectual challenge, but one we cannot refuse to take up. The future of the
world depends on how well we meet it.