Theories of global justice : relational and non-relational approaches.

This thesis evaluates two competing approaches to developing a theory of global justice. The
relational approach grounds justice in features of relationships, associations, and common
institutions. The non-relational approach, in contrast, grounds justice in universal features of
human beings, considered apart from their relationships with others. Which of the two
approaches we adopt will have implications for the resulting theory of justice (although the
distinction between the two approaches does not map straightforwardly onto that between
cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan theories of global justice). David Miller's liberal
nationalist (and non-cosmopolitan) theory of justice is a prominent example of the relational
approach. Miller support a sufficiency based conception of justice at the global level, but
restricts stronger egalitarian principles of justice to the domestic sphere. Brian Barry's
cosmopolitan theory of justice is a prominent example of the non-relational approach. Barry
supports egalitarian principles of justice at the global level. Given certain assumptions
shared by parties to the current debate within political philosophy, we can expect any
reasonable theory of global justice to be able to support some minimal conception of human
rights. Miller's theory fails to do this, for reasons that stem from his adoption of the
relational approach. The relational approach also suffers from many other problems,
including a lack of objectivity and a tendency towards conservatism. The non-relational
approach, as represented by Barry, does not suffer from equivalent problems, and should
therefore be seen as preferable.