交往实践观:全球正义论的哲学视域

在新全球化语境中,全球治理追求"善治",使全球正义问题凸显,成为政治哲学面临的重大问题之一。新全球化时代成为全球正义发生的历史地平线;而交往实践观成为科学解读全球正义问题的政治哲学视域。全球正义是一种在全球化公共交往平台上的公正秩序,它既是社会交往结构的规范原则之一,也是建立在自由的多元主体交往基础上形成的公正规则,更是交往实践中合理性与合法性的统一。正义既要反映客观的交往结构规律性的状况,获得合理性;又要获得主体际共同价值取向的支持和认同,使之合法化。没有合理的合法性或没有合法的合理性,都不可能是正义的。     

Can non‐state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework

In the absence of effective national and intergovernmental regulation to ameliorate global environmental and social problems, “private” alternatives have proliferated, including self‐regulation, corporate social responsibility, and public–private partnerships. Of the alternatives, “non‐state market driven” (NSMD) governance systems deserve greater attention because they offer the strongest regulation and potential to socially embed global markets. NSMD systems encourage compliance by recognizing and tracking, along the market’s supply chain, responsibly produced goods and services. They aim to establish “political legitimacy” whereby firms, social actors, and stakeholders are united into a community that accepts “shared rule as appropriate and justified.” Drawing inductively on evidence from a range of NSMD systems, and deductively on theories of institutions and learning, we develop an analytical framework and a preliminary set of causal propositions to explicate whether and how political legitimacy might be achieved. The framework corrects the existing literature’s inattention to the conditioning effects of global social structure, and its tendency to treat actor evaluations of NSMD systems as static and strategic. It identifies a three‐phase process through which NSMD systems might gain political legitimacy. It posits that a “logic of consequences” alone cannot explain actor evaluations: the explanation requires greater reference to a “logic of appropriateness” as systems progress through the phases. The framework aims to guide future empirical work to assess the potential of NSMD systems to socially embed global markets.     

国际非政府组织与国际法之“跨国立法”

随着全球化进程的加快和非政府组织等非国家行为体的兴起,国际法的立法模式也将发生变化。国际法立法模式正在由传统的“国家间立法”转向“国家间立法”与“跨国立法”并存的多元化立法模式。从全球治理的视角来看,作为国际秩序中与国家、国际政府组织并存的第三种力量,国际非政府组织是全球治理中的重要行为体,并在跨国立法中扮演着重要角色,其所从事的主要是事务性的立法和法律的编纂,制定的主要为国际软法,但却得到了普遍的认可和遵守。同时国际非政府组织还进一步推动和影响了国家间立法。     

中国投资协议实体保护标准的自由化和多边化演进

与双边投资协议在全球范围内的爆炸式增长形成鲜明对比,国际投资保护领域的多边协定相对而言谈判进展缓慢并且较少受到关注.亚洲地区最近的多边投资协定,当属《东盟—中国投资协议》及《中日韩三方协定》.本文以中国签订的双边和多边投资协议为研究对象,考察国民待遇、最惠国待遇、公平和公正待遇、全面保护与安全、征收以及资本转移等主要实体保护标准的演进.《东盟—中国投资协议》与《中日韩三方协定》为外国投资者提供的实体保护标准,越发显示出更为自由的保护投资者的立场,这将有利于促进投资、改善投资相关规章制度的透明度、加强投资领域的多边合作,最终推动整个亚太地区的区域投资协定的签署以及投资法律体系的自由化和多边化发展.     

Towards resonant places: reflections on the organizing strategy of the International Transport Workers’ Federation

This article explores a geographical dilemma at the heart of union organizing in transnational corporations; namely, how to circulate union power across different spaces when existing labour struggles are generally restricted to single sites. Reflecting on the experience of the International Transport Workers' Federation, this paper argues that single site campaigns have been crucial to its organizing programme. Analysing cases involving dock workers in India and logistics workers in Turkey, it is noted that these struggles are resource intensive but potentially transformational, and should be theorized as ‘resonant places’ in a wider global organizing strategy.     

Global democracy in a society of peoples

This paper explores the political structures suitable for the realization of John Rawls’ The Law of Peoples (1999). In particular, it explores whether Rawls’ principles and fundamental foundations recommend establishing global institutions and, if so, whether, and in what sense, these institutions should be democratic. It is often suggested, either implicitly or explicitly, that The Law of Peoples would operate through the bilateral and multilateral interactions of, ideally conceived, nation-states. This paper argues, on the contrary, that it would advise a series of democratic global institutions. The case is developed with respect to the idea of a global institution with the remit of regulating international trade and applied, in the contemporary context, to the World Trade Organization (WTO).     

On Sen on comparative justice

Against scepticism from thinkers including John Rawls and Thomas Nagel about the appropriateness of justice as the concept through which global ethical concerns should be approached, Amartya Sen argues that the problem lies not with the idea of justice, but with a particular approach to thinking of justice, namely a transcendental approach. In its stead Sen is determined to offer an alternative systematic theory of justice, namely a comparative approach, as a more promising foundation for a theory of ‘global justice.’ But in the end Sen offers no such thing. He does not develop a theory of justice and this is all to the good; for if values are plural in the way Sen suggests, then justice is not a master idea but one value among many, and it should be neither the first virtue of social institutions, nor the notion that frames all our reflections on ethical and political life.     

Palpable insecurity and Sen’s comparative view of justice: anthropological considerations

Amartya Sen’s comparative approach to justice makes clear that notions of justice are shaped by human agency and experience, and both his focus on the ‘internal view’ of well-being that emphasizes suffering as a central feature of illness and his recognition that social and cultural factors shape perceived injustice are critical to this approach. However, Sen questionably depicts the contributions of anthropological research to this project as limited to ‘the sensory dimension of ill-health.’ Focusing on mental health in the context of global justice, I argue that Sen’s treatise on justice can be refined through an ethnographic method that synchronizes attention to (1) cultural knowledge and social relations in ecological settings; (2) fundamental human needs; and (3) levels of analytic specificity involving situations, categories, and events. This method integrates analysis of internal phenomenology and external constraints of political economy and ideology. To demonstrate I discuss three cases involving students and violence in Rio de Janeiro, women and witchcraft in Ghana, and historical migration and war trauma among Vietnamese immigrants in which external conditions of insecurity and inequality contributed to deteriorating mental health conditions including depression, trauma, and debilitating anxiety.     

Civil Society and the Legitimation of Global Governance

Abstract

This article assesses in what ways and to what degrees civil society activities have advanced the legitimacy of global governance institutions. It is argued that these citizen initiatives have often enhanced the democratic, legal, moral and technical standing of regulatory agencies with planetary constituencies and jurisdictions. However, these benefits do not flow automatically from civil society mobilizations and on the whole are much less extensive than they could be. With a view to greater realization of the potential contributions to legitimacy, the article elaborates recommendations for more, more inclusive, more competent, more coordinated, and more accountable engagement of global governance by civil society organizations.     

Who governs? Delegations and delegates in global trade lawmaking

Who governs in the international organizations (IOs) that promulgate global norms on trade and commercial law? Using a new analytic approach, this paper focuses on previously invisible attributes of a global legislature – the state and non‐state delegations and delegates that create universal norms for international trade and commercial law through the most prominent trade law legislature, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Based on ten years of fieldwork, extensive interviews, and unique data on delegation and delegate attendance and participation in UNCITRAL's Working Group on Insolvency, we find that the inner core of global trade lawmakers at UNCITRAL represent a tiny and unrepresentative subset of state and non‐state actors. This disjunction between UNCITRAL's public face, which accords with a global norm of democratic governance, and its private face, where dominant states and private interests prevail, raises fundamental questions about legitimacy and efficacy of representation in global lawmaking.