Competing conceptions of justice in world politics
MGIMO University. Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
elibrary_id: 454127 | ORCID: 0000-0002-6997-6656 | RESEARCHER_ID: K-2788-2017
Troitskiy M.A. Competing conceptions of justice in world politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 2. P. 99-114. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.02.08
Different conceptions of justice are often employed during negotiations by states looking for an ethical anchor for their postures or trying to signal their commitment to prevail in a conflict. Major powers often support their claims of upward adjustment of their status by reference to useful conceptions of justice. For the purposes of this article, justice is defined as a fit between benefits and entitlements. The article avoids falling into the trap of contested entitlements by only considering claims of entitlement and justice based on widely recognized universal ethical principles and/or salient points. The article classifies justice conceptions relevant for international politics by source and target and groups them into dyads, or “justice dilemmas.” These dilemmas include reciprocity vs. restraint; parity vs. proportionality; status quo vs. accelerated progress; effectiveness vs. procedural justice, and others. A concept may be advanced by and/or targeted at individual actors (states) or the international community as a whole, represented by activist groups or political entrepreneurs. The positions of different sides in major international disputes as well as in the global and regional order debates may often be described and sometimes modeled as a competition between basic conceptions of justice championed by the sides. The outcome of these conflicts and debates may depend on the prevailing concepts of justice as much as on the balance of forces between the conflicting sides.
Albin, C. (2001). Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Albin, C., Druckman D. (2010). The role of justice in negotiation. In D.M. Kilgour, C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 109-119). Springer.
Albin, C., Druckman D. (2012). Equality matters: negotiating an end to civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(2), 155-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002711431798
Axelrod, R. (1984). Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Babatunde, E.O. (2020). Distributive justice in the age of climate change. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 33 (2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2020.13
Beckley, M. (2015). The myth of entangling alliances: reassessing the security risks of US Defense pacts. International Security, 39(4), 7-48. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00197
Beitz, C.R. (1999). Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beitz, C.R. (2005). Cosmopolitanism and global justice. The Journal of Ethics, 9(1-2), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3847-X_2
Brown, J., Zartman, I.W. (2019). Focal points and salient solutions. In R. Schuessler, J.-W. van der Rijt (Ed.), Focal Points in Negotiation (pp. 77-101). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27901-1_4
Connolly, R. (2018). Russia’s response to sanctions: how western economic statecraft is reshaping political economy in Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooley, A., Nexon D. (2020). Exit from hegemony: the unraveling of the American global order. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190916473.001.0001
Countryman, Th.M. (2019). A world without nuclear arms… control. Horizons, 14, 82-93. https:// www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2019-issue-no-14/a-world-without-nuclear-arms…control (accessed 12.08.2021).
Dembinski, M. (2017). Procedural justice and global order: explaining African reaction to the application of global protection norms. European Journal of International Relations, 23 (4), 809-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116681059
Dietzel, A. (2018). Introducing global justice in international relations theory. E-International Relations, 2. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/02/global-justice-in-international-relations-theory/ (accessed 01.02.2022).
Finnemore, M., Sikkink K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887-917.
Garthoff, R.L. (1992). Why did the Cold War arise and why did it end? Diplomatic History, 16 (2), 287-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1992.tb00505.x
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267
Hafner-Burton, E.M., Haggard, S., Lake, D.A., Victor D.G. (2017). The behavioral revolution and international relations. International Organization, 71(S1), S1–S31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000400
Kaczmarski, M. (2015). Russia-China relations in the post-crisis international order. London: Routledge.
Kapstein, E.B. (2008). Fairness considerations in world politics: lessons from international trade negotiations. Political Science Quarterly, 123(2), 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00623.x
Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krasner, S. (2009). Who gets a state and why? The relative rules of sovereignty. Foreign Affairs. March 30. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-03-30/who-gets-state-and-why (accessed 01.02.2022).
Krickovic, A., Zhang C. (2020). Fears of falling short versus anxieties of decline: explaining Russia and China’s approach to status-seeking. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 13(2), 219-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poaa006
Larson, D.W., Shevchenko A. (2019). Quest for status: Chinese and Russian foreign policy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Lo, Bobo. (2008). Axis of Convenience: Moscow, Beijing, and the new geopolitics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Lukin, A. (2018). China and Russia: the new rapprochement. Cambridge: Polity.
Manzo, V.A., Warden J.K. (2018). After nuclear first use, what? Survival. Global Politics and Strategy, 60(3), 133-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1470770
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security, 43 (4), 7-50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342
Nye, J.S. Jr. (1991). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books.
Paul, T.V., Larson, D.W., Wohlforth, W.C. (Eds.). (2014). Status in World Politics. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schuessler, R., van der Rijt, J.-W. (Ed.) (2019). Focal points in negotiation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27901-1
Welch, D.A. (1993). Justice and the genesis of war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walzer, M. (1990). The Communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory, 18(1), 6-23.
Zartman, I.W. (1974). Negotiation as a joint decision-making process. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(4), 619-638.
Zartman, I.W. (1995). The role of justice in global security negotiations. American Behavioral Scientist, 38(6), 889-903.
Bordachev, T. (2014). Power, morality and justice. Russia in Global Affairs, 12(2), 22-32. (In Russ.) https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/sila-moral-spravedlivost/
Guseinov, A.A. (2001). Spravedlivost’ [Justice]. In R.G. Apresyan, A.A. Guseinov (Ed.), Ehtika. Ehntsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Ethics. Encyclopedic Dictionary] (pp. 457-460). Moscow: Gardariki. (In Russ.)
Raikova, V.A. (2015). The Political Philosophy of Kennan and his views about the ethics and law in international relations in the XX century. Pskov Bulletin of Military History, 1, 125-129. (In Russ.)
Human rights as subject of political science and as interdisciplinary conception. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6
Melville A.Yu., Ilyin M.V., Makarenko B.I., Meleshkina Ye.Yu., Mironyuk M.G., Sergeev V.M., Timofeev I.N.,
Russian Foreign Policy as Seen by the Expert Community. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No4
Religion, law and politics. – On political justice in a multicultural World-Society. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No2
Russia’s national security. durability trial. Part II. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1
Human rights and tolerance. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6