| ID | 108475 |
| Title Proper | Kantian conception of global justice |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Varden, Helga |
| Publication | 2011. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | I start this article by addressing Kant's question why rightful interactions require both domestic public authorities (or states) and a global public authority? Of central importance are two issues: first, the identification of problems insoluble without public authorities, and second, why a domestic public monopoly on coercion can be rightfully established and maintained by coercive means while a global public monopoly on coercion cannot be established once and for all. In the second part of the article, I address the nature of the institutional structure of individual states and of the global authority. Crucial here, I argue, is Kant's distinction between private and public right. Private right concerns rightful relations between individual legal subjects, where public right concerns legal subjects' claims on their public institutions. I propose that the distinction between private and public right should be central to liberal critiques of current legal and political developments in the global sphere. |
| `In' analytical Note | Review of International Studies Vol. 37, No. 5; Dec 2011: p.2043-2057 |
| Journal Source | Review of International Studies Vol. 37, No. 5; Dec 2011: p.2043-2057 |
| Key Words | Global Justice ; Global Public Monopoly ; Global Authority ; Kant ; Public Right |