1. Charles Beitz: Political Theory and International Relations
1949-

2. Notice assumption of all we’ve seen:
A focus on domestic states

3. Rawls’ focus: Domestic society, as a system of fair cooperation.
Focus on preserving justice (as fairness) in domestic societies, so that cooperation can persist over time.

4. But, says Beitz:
Remember the claim that we should not be penalized by factors that are “arbitrary from a moral point of view.”

5. What about where we are born?
Is where we are born arbitrary from a moral point of view?
It seems like it should be: if we’re committed to equality and liberty, why stop at state boundaries?

6. Comparing domestic and global
Actually, though, aren’t there significant distinctions between global and domestic environment?
(no shared decision-making authority, no enforcement mechanism, no police force, etc.)

7. Comparing domestic and global
Beitz says: Global interdependence is sufficient to say that the global system of states is a “system of cooperation”, which should be regulated on “fair terms.” (p. 154)
Therefore, Rawls’ conditions apply at the global level.

8. Rawls’ principles of justice go global:
Let’s do the OP and the VoI at the global level!

9. Natural resources:
Whether a state has access to natural resources is a matter of luck, i.e., it is arbitrary from a moral point of view.

10. Resources are like talents:
If we should redistribute the results of talents (as Rawls says), we should redistribute the results of resources (says Beitz).
You must believe: talents are as integral to individuals as resources are to states.

11. The DP translated to the global level:
We get a global distribution principle.

12. Specific challenge 1:
1. Absence of international sense of community

13. Specific challenge 2:
2. Rights of sovereign states

14. Specific challenge 3:
3. Absence of coercive mechanisms – assurance problem
Or the problem of ideal versus non-ideal theory.