National responsibility and global justice

Abstract

Contemporary accounts of global justice are characterized by a tension between the intuition that extreme international inequality is inherently unjust and the belief that national communities should be held responsible for their collective decisions. Reconciling these views requires a defense of national responsibility that acknowledges its dependence on internal political control and external environmental constraints. Under this framework, global justice is not a simple extension of domestic social justice but a distinct set of obligations consisting of two primary components. First, a non-comparative requirement mandates the universal protection of basic human rights, defined as the conditions necessary for a minimally decent life. Second, a comparative principle of fairness governs international cooperation and trade, necessitating that the resulting cooperative surplus be distributed to provide equal net benefits to all participating parties. This approach leaves room for significant material inequality between nations, provided such differences result from autonomous collective choices rather than rights violations or exploitative terms of interaction. While a “justice gap” may arise when the costs of fulfilling global claims conflict with the internal requirements of social justice, the implementation of these global principles ultimately supports national responsibility by securing the necessary conditions for self-determination. By grounding justice in the protection of basic needs and fair interaction rather than global egalitarianism, it is possible to maintain a world of independent political communities that are truly responsible for their own destinies. – AI-generated abstract.