_________ 1
______________
_________________
__________
____________
Global Responsibility and global Justice are linked with moral, ethical and humanitarian considerations. The concept is to ensure equal right and fundamental liberty for all in the world. The theory stresses the need for equitable distribution of wealth and resources to all people of the world. John Rawls (1971, p.3) states in ‘A Theory of Justice’ that, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”
The existent apparent gap or chasm, in the world; between ‘have’s and have not’s’ with regard to socio-economic status among the peoples of the world, is the ‘epicenter’ of this problem. Inequality in providing even basic needs of ‘food, shelter and clothing, is eye-catching. The global inequality is highlighted in following excerpt (Collste. p18)
“1 billion lack clean water, 1 billion starve (FAO conference 2009), 2.4 billion
have insufficient sanitary equipment, 1 billion people (out of six) earn less than
$1/day – 3 billion less than $2/day, 3 top billionaires own more than the combined
GNP of all the least developed countries with 600 million people.
There is no ‘Global Government’ or ‘Universal Authority’ to oversee or monitor this situation in the world. The world is divided into many countries and each (political) authority interprets the equality, liberty and equal opportunity in its characteristic perspective. Each country and each people devise and design own model. There is a huge gap in this as observed among ‘developed’, developing and ‘underdeveloped or undeveloped’ countries. This paper discusses some theories of global responsibility and their implications.
_________ 2
THE NEGATIVE DUTIES MODEL
Undertaking global responsibility has often referred to the distinction between positive and negative duties. Positive duties are a form of affirmative action aimed towards serving the good of other people, while negative duties impose prohibition towards the commission of particular acts. Therefore, one could rightfully claim that an act is a positive duty if it aims to, say, encourage people to help fight poverty, and a negative duty if it purports to stop people from committing criminal acts specified under statutes, for example (Shue, 1988, p. 688).
An elaboration of the negative duties model requires a further understanding of the concept of duties. Whereas Shue (1988, p. 688) agrees that duties, with their correlation to rights, may either be positive or negative, further distinctions beyond the foregoing help provide a stronger understanding of the human rights concept. A duty, in as much as it is either positive or negative, is distinguishable through its perfection or imperfection. A perfect duty refers to that included within the specific entitlement of certain individuals or groups. One fulfills a perfect duty through an action satisfying a person or an organization, as merited by particular agreements or law. An imperfect duty is one that does not aim to satisfy particular individuals or groups, hence denying anyone the entitlement to claim its consequent benefits. Moreover, a duty is distinguishable as either special or general; the former is required through existing causal relations, and the latter does not have connections with specific acts or circumstances. In light of the foregoing, Shue (1988, pp. 690) has argued for the universality of negative duties in granting rights. Guarantees over the implementation of rights require its negative duties to be universal. Otherwise, those not covered by the negative duties of a particular right due of its non-universality may successfully deny those entitled under the right. In other words, negative duties under a right that have non-universal characteristics may make the implementation of such right ineffective (Shue, 1988, pp. 690).
_________ 3
THE CAPABILITIES MODEL
Capabilities Model is linked with human rights such as income to maintain decent life, opportunity for education, access to health care, political liberty, equal opportunity irrespective of gender or race. Nussbaum states (1997. p. 279), “The account of human capabilities has been used as an answer to a number of different questions, such as: What is the living standard? What is the quality of life? What is the relevant type of equality that we should consider in political planning?” These questions link the capabilities model with theory of justice. The author (p. 277) expresses Human Capabilities as, “legal guarantees of freedom of expression and freedom of religious exercise as aspects of the general capability to use one’s mind and one’s senses by one’s own practical reason.” The author further speaks of freedom of person choices without interference and freedom of public expression related to politics.
The capabilities approach links quality of life with their ‘abilities’ to accomplish useful or ‘valuable’ tasks. This approach does not directly match the concept of human rights and the theory of justice. However, this approach is useful in developing capabilities to achieve or fulfill desires; and considering a wider implication of this model, a nation with industrious, resourceful and multi-talented people will have the higher potential to record growth and achieve quicker development towards creating greater and equal opportunity for its people. The standard of living and quality of life will gradually attain a higher status with increase in per capita income.
Providing positive impetus to increase abilities of people is of vital importance. Government has to create infrastructure for utilizing available resources in the best possible manner, orientation and direction. Many small countries of the world have achieved remarkable progress by adopting this approach.
_________ 4
THE NEEDS MODEL
The needs model attempts to associate needs with rights. Need can become a right, but it is not that all needs are rights. Wringe (n.d. p. 190) states, “A more plausible suggestion is that when needs claims have moral force they have it in virtue of the inescapability of the ends to which they are relative.” Individual needs cannot become an obligation for others. For example, compensation for the work done by an employee is the need which makes the compensation an obligation for the employer. Food, clothing and shelter are the fundamental needs of every human. But these do not be understood as obligations for others. Wringe (n.d. p. 192) refers to Alan Gewirth and states, “ that the fact that these needs are among the preconditions of any form of rational agency gives rise to a right to their satisfaction.”
Brock G. (n.d. p. 51) states that global justice cannot be prescribed without evaluating the importance of ‘needs’, “In this paper I argue that needs are tremendously salient in developing any plausible account of global justice.” The author points out that are many poor countries in the world, where people do not have their fundamental needs satisfied and that they practically live in miserable conditions of illiteracy, poverty, scarcity and hunger. Brock hints at the moral duty (obligation?) of rich and developed countries to help such ‘needy’ people.
Organizations like WHO and UNESCO have been active in providing healthcare, nutritive food and educational facilities to such people in many African countries. Rich and developed countries provide necessary funds, equipment and services of qualified professionals. In a way, this is an act of satisfying needs of people of these countries or an example of performing moral duties; if not obligations. There are NGOs and charitable organizations that follow the suit within their scope and limitations in various locations in the world. Morally justified needs, thus, provide a base for global responsibility.
_________ 5
DISCUSSION
The Theory of Global Responsibility and Global Justice is based on the fact that all humans are created as equal and each human has the right to existence, subsistence, liberty and expression. The existing imparities in lives and living conditions in poor countries is a cause for global concern. The Negative Duties Model stresses the importance of recognizing the difference between positive duties – duties to act for the good of others, and negative duties – duties to abide by particular prohibitions against acts harmful to others. Capabilities Model suggests self-help by developing ‘abilities’ among the people of a country to minimize the need for external help. The Needs Model stresses on moral obligation/duties of rich people and developed countries to help the poor people of different countries and to provide those help and satisfy their justified needs.
The Capabilities Model is more preferable to lead people to self-sufficiency and self-dependency. External help does not solve the problem permanently; and it is likely to make the ‘helped’ people solely dependent on others more as a ‘liability’. The Needs Model is like ‘emergency’ intervention; whereas The Capabilities Model is a proactive measure that will gradually cure the ‘disorder’ from the root.
CONCLUSION
The Theory of Global Responsibility and Global Justice is acceptable on grounds of humanity and human rights and also as a moral obligation/duty to help the poor people in the world. However, if, the final destination of human race – peace and prosperity, health and happiness for all- is to be reached, the most appropriate plan and methodology will have to be followed. The issue of inequality in all major areas of human life cannot be denied nor can be neglected. The durability of a strong chain is equal to the durability of its weakest link. The Globe of our world has to remain as a WHOLE; and any ‘hole’ in it will ‘sink’ it.
_________ 6
Works Cited
Brock G. Needs and Global Justice. 51-72. Pdf. Print.
Collste. G. What is a theory of global justice? Centre for Applied Ethics.
https://www.liu.se/theories-in/Whatisatheoryofglobaljustice.pdf. Print.
Nussbaum M. C. Beyond the Social Contract: Capabilities and Global Justice.
Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2004.
ISSN 1360-0818 print/ISSN 1469-9966 online/04/010003-16 2004 International Development Centre, Oxford. DOI: 10.1080/1360081042000184093. Print.
Nussbaum M. C. Capabilities And Human Rights. Fordham Law Review, Vol. 66. Pdf.
Print.
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. © Copyright 1971, 1999 by the President and Fellows of Harvard
1971 by Harvard University Press. Printed in the United States of America. Print.
Shue H. Mediating Justice. Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 4, July 1988.
Wringe B. Needs, Rights, and Collective Obligations. 187-207. Pdf. Print.
