Globalization and Rawlsian Political Theory: the Methodological Problems Presented by Globalization for State-based Theories of Justice

Literature on globalization and literature on theories of justice often have similar aims, but they rarely draw from one another. The aim in both areas may frequently be the construction of a fairer society, but both sets of literature work from different assumptions. While transcendence of a state-centric perspective is a key objective for globalization scholars, political theory takes little if any regard of the fundamental substantive changes occurring within global society, even though such changes seem to be regarded as politically, economically and socially important in most disciplines in the social sciences. This paper will attempt to unpack the problems that globalization creates for liberal political theory by focussing on two things: the elevated role of private governance within global society and the decreased relevance of territory as an organising principle in contemporary global social relations. From a Rawlsian perspective, the requirements of justice apply to public institutions within a bounded territory. Anything that occurs outside that sphere is accordingly not relevant to a theory of justice. In this sense, justice beyond the state is deemed to be justice between states. Yet Rawls also argues that justice applies to institutions that have a deep and profound effect upon peoples ’ lives. Contemporary intensified processes of globalization result in global institutions and actors (such as global companies, global NGOs, global regulatory bodies) having an important effect on peoples lives, yet such behaviour falls outside of the purview of a liberal political theory of justice. For liberal theories of justice to remain relevant to the emergent debate on global justice, it is argued that the implications of globalizing processes ought to be taken into account