Mardi intime de la Chaire Hoover par Simon Caney (University of Warwick)

In the past some used to defend some overarching principles of justice – globalise the difference principle, global equality, global sufficiency, global libertarianism, etc. But then people specialised on specific topics – climate justice, migration justice, health justice, trade justice, territorial justice, natural resource rights, biodiversity justice, etc. Many focused on their topic and analysed it in isolation. The study of global justice has become fragmented – examining separate topics in isolation. This leads me to ask: When we theorize about global justice should we construct principles for different topics – climate, trade, migration, natural resource ownership, AI, technological change … - considered in isolation from each other? Alternatively, should we draw on a general theory of justice and treat different issues (like climate change, migration and poverty) in conjunction with each other and in light of a general theory? According to what I term an Isolationist approach we should construct principles for different topics (such as trade or migration or biodiversity loss) in isolation from one another. A contrary view is what I term an Integrationist approach: this holds that we should employ a general theory of justice which covers a wide range of different issues and examines these issues in conjunction with each other and in the light of this general theory. I defend Integrationism.