International justice

The demands of global justice are further explored by David Resnik. Resnik believes that international justice depends not on individuals, but primarily on nations because they stand to have the greatest impact. In view of international justice goals, global health inequalities need to be considered. Resnik looks at the implications of the main theories of justice and what our international obligations of justice are. He begins with Rawlsian egalitarianism and then considers the Implications of utilitarianism in relation to questions about international justice. 

The differences in health between the developing and developed nations are an important problem for theories of international justice. Are these differences just or unjust If they are unjust, how should they be addressed What moral obligations do developed nations have toward developing nations Do developing nations have an obligation to take steps to reduce global health inequalities This chapter will examine these and other questions related to global justice and access to medications. 

Skeptics argue that there cannot be anything like international justice because this is a relationship among different states. Since states are not moral agents, and cannot agree on any legal or moral principles, justice among nations is a delusion (Beitz 1999). 

According to the skeptic, global health inequalities do not raise any concerns from the perspective of international justice, because there is no such thing. 

Since international justice is possible, nations should be concerned about global health inequalities and how best to respond to them. The decision on how to respond to health inequalities depends on the approach adopted to international justice. There are three basic approaches, which mirror approaches to national justice libertarianism. 

One of the main critiques of libertarianism is that it is a heartless and cruel philosophy, one that provides no social safety net to care for the least advantaged members of society, such as the poor, uneducated, diseased, or disabled. I accept this critique and will not rehearse it in detail here (Rawls 1971). A theory of justice should address the interests of the least advantaged members of society. A just state should do more than protect the rights and interests of its most powerful members it should protect its least powerful members. A theory of international justice should also address the interests of the least advantaged nations, and a just system of international agreements should provide economic, diplomatic, or military aid to nations in dire need. 

How might Rawls egalitarianism apply to international justice A straightforward way of extending the theory would be to apply his two principles to relationships... 

To summarize, two different approaches to international justice, Rawls egalitarian theory and utilitarianism, would both recommend that the world s nations take steps to reduce global health inequalities, but for different reasons. A Rawlsian would hold that the world s nations should provide aid to the least advantaged nations so that these nations can have an opportunity to develop and participate in the community of nations. A utilitarian would hold that world s nations should help to reduce the disease burden of the least advantaged nations to prevent these countries from causing harm to other countries, and to help these countries participate in economic activities that can benefit other countries. 

Since international justice requires developed nations to help reduce global health inequalities, and one of the best ways of reducing health inequalities is to promote access to medications for developing nations, it follows that international justice requires developed nations to help developing nations attain access to medications, especially those used to treat or prevent infectious diseases. There are two different access issues that need to be addressed availability and cost. 

On the domestic front, despite the State Party s international obligation to implement treaty provisions, these can be implemented only to the extent that they meet the legal standards of the State Party s constitution. On the other hand, internationally, it is one of the fundamental principles of international law that, in the words of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) judgment, a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force . Thus, a State Party would face the dilemma of whether to abide by domestic law or by international treaty law if an inspector is refused access to some particular facihty or location by its owner for any reason. 

Permanent Court of International Justice (1933) Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Judgement Legal Status of Eastern Greenland of 05-04-1933... 

There had even been the proposal that once the Permanent Court of International Justice was set up, every Polish national and all national groups should be allowed to appeal directly to the court. See Viefhaus (1960), p. 195. 

Permanent Court of International Justice (1930) Greco-Bulgarian Ctunmunities Advisray Opinion The Greco Bulgarian Communities, 31 July 1930 P.C.IJ. Series B. No. 17, p. 33. 

An earlier version of the discussion of the consequences of the introduction of the modified tight (now presented in parts of this chapter and of Chapter 6) was published in Anna Moltchanova, Stateless national groups, international justice, and asymmetrical warfare, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(2), June 2005, 194-215, publisher WUey and Sons Ltd. 

On the underdog s use of unconventional tactics to counteract the unfair advantage of its opponent, see Shaimon E. French, Murderers, not Warriors The Moral Distinction between Terrorists and Legitimate Fighters in Asymmetric Conflicts, in Terrorism and International Justice, ed. J. P. Sterba (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 34. 

David MiUer, National Responsiblity and International Justice, in The Ethics of Assistance Morality and the Distant Needy, ed. Deen K. Chatterjee (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 130-131. 

David HoUenbach, SJ, is University Chair in Human Rights and International Justice, Theology Department, Boston College. 

See, for instance. Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion No. 4 Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, 7 February 1923, 24. 

The only effective responses must surely be more complex. Terrorism will never be eradicated worldwide, but certain groups and factions may be dissuaded from their current actions if the intellectual aigq-ments can be won, if they have a legitimate focus for the expression of their goals and if they believe they have access to international justice unbiased by narrow national interest and longstanding prejudice. 

---