Global justice is viewed as a political philosophy problem whereby the world is assumed unjust to the people. From a broader perspective the issue of global justice is as a result of the strong impartiality that exists amongst people. Individuals believe that they have more significant duties and responsibilities to execute for their friends, compatriots, and family members. However, this is done without paying attention to foreigners or strangers in their presence. The problem becomes more perplexing because people do not have well defined expectations of justice. Hence it becomes difficult to evaluate justice in a global scale. This can also be attributed to the fact that theories and concepts related to global justice are in their early phases of formation. Therefore, they cannot adequately give the relevant solutions to the problem of global justice which continues to prevail since the earlier days.
The feminists in the society would describe the issue of global justice based on distributive equality of prosperity and other resources. Lack of equality in wealth distribution paves way for international inequality which is viewed as social injustice. They can also describe this matter with respect to the institutions established to enhance justice. It is true that these institutions carry on their mandate in a limited scope due to the territorial jurisdiction that hinders them to work on a global perspective. A better understanding of the domestic political theory would be important in knowing this problem effectively. Good international relations are formed under proper domestic politics that can consequently steer global justice. Therefore, it is the role of leaders in the society to act in a way that would been the best interests of the people, and in accordance with the international affairs rules of engagement.
Furthermore, the doctrine of realism asserts that there are no universal ethical standards. Henceforth, individual states become the chief actors during times of international anarchy. The states will act in rationality for their own interests not caring about the well being of others. Conversely, the concept of cosmopolitanism dwells on the fact the world has a type of moral uniformity which guides the society. The conduct of the people is determined by certain characteristics which are morally important and are depicted by all people. This portrays that humans have a given level of moral soundness (Ronzoni, 2008). The main approach that could be formulated to deal with the problem of global justice would be through equity in all aspects. It is true that equal persons can easily understand one another without being coerced.
This would therefore imply that people would not exploit one another and hence justice and peace would prevail. Equity would encompass both the level of resources and also the level endowment of the people (Porter, 2001). Equity would also foster unity amongst the people in the community hence they would have a just and peaceful co-existence. This approach would solve the problem in a better way since gaining equity by the community is also a welfare maximizing approach. The past approaches mainly consisted of forceful actions in order to achieve justice. However, this approach is much more peaceful and it enhances equity and justice at the same time. The peer reviewed sources used do not concur with my approach fully though they use the approach to a minimal level. However, they foster justice through state interventions that calls for liberalism and humanitarian aid (Valentini, 2011). They also advocate for strict abiding with the set moral conducts and also establishment of institutions to implement justice.
Porter, J. (2001). The search for a global ethic. Theological Studies, 62(1), 105 - 117.
Ronzoni, M. (2008). Two Concepts of Basic Structure and their Relevance to Global Justice, Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric.
Valentini, L. (2011). Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.