Statism and Cosmopolitanism on Global Justice and Universal Fundamental Rights

This review paper critically assesses the two main theories of global justice, statism and cosmopolitanism, according to which fundamental rights, and their corresponding duties, ought to be differently upheld, and enforced, at the global level. Its main aim is to go beyond the limitations of these theories defending the equal relevance of both fundamental civil and political rights and socio-economic rights, and their corresponding duties, at the global level and the need for the assessment of their implementation according to the level of their justification. To pursue this objective, the paper argues for the conceptualization of a fair (common) mean among these two categories of rights which can be morally and politically constructed on the very basic right to reciprocal and general justification. Accordingly, the focus is posed on the interconnection as well as conflicts between these two categories of rights, and their corresponding duties, establishing a ‘measure’ according to which their justification can be assessed, and their implementation and enforcement be ensured. This paper seeks also to prove that this conceptualization of fundamental rights and duties, which takes together Aristotle’s conception of justice and Forst’s critical theory of political and social justice, can provide a sketch on how a fair implementation and enforcement of peoples’ and persons’ rights and duties ought to be conceived at the global level.