Human Rights in the Context of Global Justice

V nalogi bom obravnaval problem interpretacije človekovih pravic v teoriji Johna Rawlsa in Thomasa Poggeja s posebnim ozirom na idealni in ne-idealni teoriji kot specifičnima načinoma obravnavanja normativne teorije. Osrednji del naloge bo predstavljala razdelava teoretskih temeljev Rawlsove knjige A Theory of Justice, njeni kontroverzni razširitvi v sfero mednarodnih odnosov in Poggejevi teoriji globalne pravičnosti. Zagovarjal bom, da je teoretični temelj Rawlsove teorije idealen, Poggejeva teorija pa je v temelju ne-idealna. Nadalje bo naloga zagovarjala, da omenjena distinkcija med avtorjema ustvari paradoks, ki je najbolj očiten v njuni zasnovi človekovih pravic, Rawlsova idealna zasnova namreč ustvari konzervativen okvir človekovih pravic (glede na status quo), Poggejeva idealna teorija pa ustvari koncepcijo, ki je morda preveč univerzalna.Thesis will address the issue of interpretation of human rights in the theory of John Rawls and Thomas Pogge. Aforementioned issue shall be addressed through the examination of ideal and non-ideal theory as specific modes of theoretical deliberation. The main body of the thesis will present the theoretical foundations of ideal and non-ideal theory in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and its controversial implementation in the sphere of international relations as well as Pogges theory of global justice. I will argue that the theoretical foundation of Rawls is ideal while Pogges foundation is non-ideal. Furthermore the thesis will argue that distinction between the authors creates a paradox that is evident in their conception of human rights where Rawlss ideal conceptualization constructs a more conservative framework (in regards to the status quo of human rights) while Pogges non-ideal theory creates a concept that is perhaps too universal