3.4. The Critics to Rawls Law of Peoples.
The Law of Peoples published in 1993 was Rawls attempt to work out an approach to international law. The position Rawls holds in his publication regarding distributive justice is not changed. The international justice is not the same as justice as fairness but a foreign policy of liberal peoples. To see how Rawls’ idea is refuted, we I will give a brief main points on the law of peoples then will examine some criticisms. The criticism would be that the law of Peoples would be inadequate as a reconstruction of the international law and also will see how the Law of People is not adequate as a theory of international justice. The inadequacy regarding the Law of People is the fact that Rawls did not give …show more content…
In A Theory of Justice Rawls said, “A primary goods such as liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, self-respect are to be equally distributed unless an unequal distribution of any kind or all of these goods for the advantage of the least favored.” This conception of primary goods are further divided into “liberty Principle and the Difference Principle.” Rawls contented that if these two principles are implemented, “it would adequate for the primary goods but he confines principle of justice to the domestic society.” in A Theory of Justice while in the Law of Peoples, Rawls spoke of justice within the society of peoples. Rawls didn’t focus on states but on people as he said, “a political conception of society as consisting of individual sharing conception of what is meant to be a political being and how individual act through the political institutions.” Regarding the law of peoples, Rawls clearly stated that it is, “a particular political conception of right and justice that applies to the principles and norms of international law and practice between and among peoples.” The law of Peoples constitutes a society of people consisting of people who follow the ideas and principles of …show more content…
He calls this effort a realistic utopia. “He is concerned of the principle of the fair coexistence of the liberal and non-liberal people.” Frank J. Garcia comment on Rawls that “his project is the formulation of normative principles to guide the foreign policy of a liberal people; it is not the reconstruction of international justice for a cosmopolis.” F Garcia divided Rawls Law of People in three parts.( I) The extension of domestic justice to a society of liberal societies (II)The extension of liberal ideas of political right and justice to relations between liberal and decent hierarchical states and (III) the special problems posed by the world as we find it, or the realm of “non-ideal theory,” i.e., relations between liberal and decent peoples on the one hand, and burdened societies and outlaw states on the other.” Those who read A Theory of Justice would have some acquaintance of the three parts of the Law of People above like an original position is constructed, first for the selection of principles of domestic justice, and second for the selection of principles guiding the law of peoples, namely the relations among liberal peoples, and between
The Law of Peoples published in 1993 was Rawls attempt to work out an approach to international law. The position Rawls holds in his publication regarding distributive justice is not changed. The international justice is not the same as justice as fairness but a foreign policy of liberal peoples. To see how Rawls’ idea is refuted, we I will give a brief main points on the law of peoples then will examine some criticisms. The criticism would be that the law of Peoples would be inadequate as a reconstruction of the international law and also will see how the Law of People is not adequate as a theory of international justice. The inadequacy regarding the Law of People is the fact that Rawls did not give …show more content…
In A Theory of Justice Rawls said, “A primary goods such as liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, self-respect are to be equally distributed unless an unequal distribution of any kind or all of these goods for the advantage of the least favored.” This conception of primary goods are further divided into “liberty Principle and the Difference Principle.” Rawls contented that if these two principles are implemented, “it would adequate for the primary goods but he confines principle of justice to the domestic society.” in A Theory of Justice while in the Law of Peoples, Rawls spoke of justice within the society of peoples. Rawls didn’t focus on states but on people as he said, “a political conception of society as consisting of individual sharing conception of what is meant to be a political being and how individual act through the political institutions.” Regarding the law of peoples, Rawls clearly stated that it is, “a particular political conception of right and justice that applies to the principles and norms of international law and practice between and among peoples.” The law of Peoples constitutes a society of people consisting of people who follow the ideas and principles of …show more content…
He calls this effort a realistic utopia. “He is concerned of the principle of the fair coexistence of the liberal and non-liberal people.” Frank J. Garcia comment on Rawls that “his project is the formulation of normative principles to guide the foreign policy of a liberal people; it is not the reconstruction of international justice for a cosmopolis.” F Garcia divided Rawls Law of People in three parts.( I) The extension of domestic justice to a society of liberal societies (II)The extension of liberal ideas of political right and justice to relations between liberal and decent hierarchical states and (III) the special problems posed by the world as we find it, or the realm of “non-ideal theory,” i.e., relations between liberal and decent peoples on the one hand, and burdened societies and outlaw states on the other.” Those who read A Theory of Justice would have some acquaintance of the three parts of the Law of People above like an original position is constructed, first for the selection of principles of domestic justice, and second for the selection of principles guiding the law of peoples, namely the relations among liberal peoples, and between