Why international economic inequality doesn\u27t matter

I do not believe that international inequalities of wealth and income, as such, are a concern of liberal justice. Everyone in the world has a right to live in a just society. Every society in the world has a right to relate to other societies on terms of equal respect. However, worldwide domestic justice and international relations of equal respect do not require an ongoing regulation of international inequalities of wealth and income. I argue that prominent justifications for concern about international inequalities of wealth and income are not well grounded. First, contra the expectations of many philosophers, it is not possible to appropriate the work of John Rawls in defense of the thesis that international economic inequalities are unjust. Second, it is not possible to ground international economic egalitarianism in the idea, now prominent in political philosophy, that it is unjust for persons to experience disadvantages due to circumstances outside of their control. Importantly, my rejection of international economic egalitarianism does not denote my acceptance of the status quo. I argue that a robust duty of international assistance is a necessary component of any theory of global economic justice. I argue that we can turn to contractarian political theory to explain why international assistance demands that relatively wealthy nations contribute more assistance than they currently do. I defend this claim by showing that the parties to Rawls\u27s international original position would choose a demanding principle of international assistance