About the research

Justice is most often thought about as a question of a fair distribution of goods and resources – hence the quest for a global distributive justice. But also a hegemon can distribute goods in a just manner. In that case we are faced with the problem of paternalism and new forms of injustice. The focus on distribution of goods in theories of justice blends out the first question of justice, namely that of political power. This is the question of how the goods were produced and allocated in the first place. Injustice stems from being excluded from determining who gets what.

The primary concern of justice is thus not with how many goods a person should have, but rather with the kind of standing actors have – whether they are free or whether they are subjected to the whims of others.

GLOBUS engages with the nascent theoretical debate that has developed in the context of globalisation. It adds to this debate both by developing a novel conceptual scheme of how justice can potentially be achieved and by discussing the principled and practical dilemmas involved in promoting justice in issue areas of key importance to a theory of global justice.

Conceptions of justice

GLOBUS develops a conceptual scheme that takes into account the fact that the concept of justice is contested. It delineates three different conceptions of how the EU might contribute to ensure a more just global order. The first conceives of justice as non-dominance, the second of justice as impartiality and the third of justice as mutual recognition. All three conceptions rest on the insight that concerns with justice apply not merely to outcome but also to political structure and the standing of actors. They all come with strengths and weaknesses as they prioritise differently the main concerns of justice. The three-dimensional analytical scheme allows us to deal with the dilemmas and pertinent concerns that appear when we are to identify a robust theory of global political justice.

GLOBUS considers both to what extent the three conceptions fit with the EU’s own understanding of global justice and to what extent the EU’s success may be attributed to this particular approach. Further, we consider to what extent they capture claims for justice at the global level. Has there been contestation and opposition or are the procedures accepted? To what extent and what kind of critique and opposition is in evidence?

Nowhere are the effects of the twin facts of international poverty and global integration more visible than in the issue of migration. Yet migration is not only linked to poverty and famine, but also to climate change, civil war, oppression and breaches of human rights.

At the same time, EU policies on migration have never been so contested as they are today. There may be a gap between what the EU claims to stand for and what it actually does. Is a ‘fortress Europe’ compatible with the EU’s self-proclaimed aim of contributing to a more just global order? The issue of migration raises a number of dilemmas for the EU with regard to justice.

GLOBUS investigates which conception of justice underpins the EU's attempt to handle migration, and assesses whether the European management of migration lives up to the principles of global justice.

Migration is an area in which the tension between different conceptions of justice emerges in all its clarity. It is by definition a cross-border issue that has a direct effect on the interests of states as well as individuals. It touches upon legitimate concerns of different communities, of individuals and of global actors. Hence, the very possibility of managing migration in a way that satisfies the legitimate justice claims of all those involved is challenged by the nature of the issue.

The management of migration also exposes the EU to particularly severe challenges given the unsettled and contested nature of the European system of migration. Competences are shared between the EU and the Member states, but efforts at reaching common policies have become highly contentious, with some member states protesting legitimate decisions in the Council. Moreover, the policies of Member States exhibit significant differences and the EU’s directives are not applied in a homogeneous way on the domestic level.

The very possibility of managing migration in a way that satisfies the legitimate justice claims of all those involved is challenged by the nature of the issue.

The EU’s political authority in the area of migration is spread across a variety of (state and EU based) actors with partly separate, partly overlapping, mandates. Instead of assuming that there is a single and clear-cut decision-making procedure within this field, we should conceive of migration policy as organised in an 'EU Migration System of Governance' within which different levels of government are involved in partially cooperative, partially conflicting, relations. This conception allows us to capture the inherent friction among alternative sets of priorities.

We investigate what conception of justice underpins such an EU migration system. This is done in part by analysing the legislation and practices of the EU and the Member States. We aim to identify the terms, definitions, and concepts employed. Definitions of legal terms and empirical scrutiny of policy developments over time are combined with thick descriptions of selected cases. We also analyse the main legitimising narratives of migration policies put forward by European states.

What are the arguments of contesting voices inside as well as outside Europe?

We pay attention to the arguments of contesting voices inside as well as outside Europe, with a particular emphasis on the perspectives emerging from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This question links up to that of the external dimension of EU migration policies, which will be addressed in the research strand on 'Migration, Security and Justice beyond EU borders'. Here we study the EU’s relationship with international organizations, its approach to neighbouring countries, and its crisis management efforts.

Another set of issues that we will examine come under the heading 'Migration discourses and practices in Europe: between securitization and justice'. A key concern in this part of our research is to examine how important the idea of an alleged linkage between migration and terrorism is in the formulation of the EU’s policies on migration as well as how it plays into popular perception.

Climate change has strong implications for global justice in direct and immediate ways. While it impacts all parts of the globe, it affects those already most vulnerable considerably more. At the same time, this is a challenge where individual action is often futile. We have to act collectively in order to resolve the problem. Climate change is probably the clearest example of how the global and the local are mutually dependent on each other, and how it is not possible to find just solutions without taking into consideration the interests and values of communities beyond one's own borders.

The EU is widely perceived as a leader concerning progressive climate policies but has nonetheless struggled to effectively push through its ideas internationally. Why is the EU able to be so forward-looking while it at the same time struggles to convince other major actors to adopt ambitious carbon emission standards?

GLOBUS combines the insights of political theory with those from empirically grounded research. In this vein, one of the focus areas in this work package is to assess whether and how the EU has changed its approach on climate change between the 2009 Copenhagen and 2015 Paris summits. The main idea is to use these milestone summits as reference points.

Which specific conceptions of justice underpin the EU's policies and negotiation strategies?

How, exactly, does the EU conceive of its duties in the context of climate change? Which specific conceptions of justice underpin its policies and negotiation strategies? One way we will examine these questions is through investigating the EU’s participation in technology transfer and financial aid to countries that strive to reduce their carbon emissions. In particular, we will focus on the EU’s relations with Brazil, South Africa, India, and China.

Furthermore, the research group on climate justice will pay particular attention to how the EU interacts with third countries concerning climate change. In order to identify how the EU understands global justice in this domain, we will take a closer look at the EU’s involvement with the Green Climate Fund. This fund is supposed to improve the ability of developing countries to adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change.

Moreover, we will examine the EU’s role in the transfer of green technology. This is seen as a crucial component in helping poorer populations achieve sustainability and resilience – which subsequently would contribute to more climate justice.

How does the EU interact with third countries concerning climate change?

Another example of the empirical analyses in this research area pertains to how the EU interacts with third countries in the EU’s Green Diplomacy Network. Has this network led to a strengthening of the EU’s abilities to recognise different views on climate policy? In what ways, if at all, did the EU incorporate the views of opposing actors? An underlying concern is to find out if such a recognition might contribute to a wider acceptance of EU positions on climate change in third countries.

The EU has significant economic power both by the size of its aid budget and through trade agreements securing access to the European market. Yet, the EU is also under pressure to secure its own position in an increasingly competitive global economy.

The risk of dominance is evident, as the EU could potentially dictate the terms of trade with its partners in the developing world. But a policy of redistribution (developmental aid) may not fare much better. New types of injustices appear when living conditions are determined by the benevolence of a dominating agent. A voice must be given to the affected parties. Thus we pay attention to the underlying question of power, and investigate the actual practice of the EU's policies towards trade and development. GLOBUS further pays attention to the principles and procedures developed, as well as what notion of justice underpins them.

In the work package ‘Trade, Development and global justice’ we ask: What conception of justice, if any, underpins the EU’s trade and development policies? How does the EU contribute to global justice through this conception? We will investigate the EU’s trade and development policies and the nexus between them.

In the realm of trade, we will inter alia study the shift from preferential to reciprocal trade agreements between the EU and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP). What did this shift signify for Botswana, Mozambique, and South Africa, three countries with different trade preferences and needs? We examine the content of the new Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) and compare it to multilateral trade rules. How did the EU proceed during the negotiations? In line with the conception of justice as mutual recognition, we are particularly interested in the extent to which the ACP countries’ perspectives were taken into account.

The intersection between the EU’s trade and development policies is another focus area in this work-package. While the EU’s development policy is generally commended for generous contributions and focus on recipient ownership, its trade policy with developing countries is one of the EU’s most criticised and controversial policy areas. What happens when the two policy areas meet? Which goals and values does the EU prioritise?

What happens when trade and development meet? Which goals and values does the EU prioritise?

One case we will look at is the EU’s recently established Aid for Trade (AfT) policy, which aims at helping developing countries benefit from trade agreements. What is the conception of justice underpinning the EU’s approach to aid for trade? Does it differ from that of other international actors?

In assessing the EU’s development policy, we will draw out factors that inhibit or facilitate the EU’s ambitions with regard to justice promotion. One way in which we will do so is by comparing and contrasting the principles of justice underpinning the EU’s aid policies with those of the United States, China, Brazil and South Africa. We pay particular attention to assessing a putative gap between rhetoric and practice. To what extent does the EU overstep what it preaches, perpetuate a situation of dependence, or even exercise arbitrary power?

An adequate approach to justice takes heed of the experiences of those affected by the policy.

When examining the EU’s development policy we emphasise that an adequate approach to justice takes heed of the experiences of those affected by the policy. In line with this concern, we aim both to identify how the EU’s aid policy is perceived and experienced in recipient countries, and which conception of justice underpins the position of other actors in relation to the EU.

GLOBUS will identify, in various case studies, which of GLOBUS' conception(s) of justice underpin the EU's approach in bilateral and multilateral issue areas involving the EU. Security policy may also be presented as existing outside the realm of 'justice' – framed as it may be on existential survival. In addition, policy practice may not always reflect a concern for justice. In some cases, this results from the failure of participants to honour them, but in other cases it is produced by the limited time frame for decision-making produced by the need for an urgent decision, unequal starting positions between participants (including a lack of capacity to participate) or by the nature of the issue in question. In other cases, one of the conceptions will be privileged. In the case of humanitarian intervention, non-domination may be paramount. In the case of the crisis in Syria, impartiality may trump the sovereign power of the state. In the case of gender interventions, recognition of different viewpoints may be the only way a dialogue can begin in the first place.

What are the most prominent justice claims emanating from emerging powers? There may be diverging perspectives on what would be adequate procedures for resolving concerns for justice. To what extent, and how, do the EU’s policies take heed of the claims from these states and from their citizens?

Women are overrepresented among the world’s poorest and underrepresented in positions of power and influence. In many states, they do not enjoy basic human rights protection; they are oppressed and denied the means to take responsibility for their own lives. Access to livelihood and education is unequally distributed and the background institutions are not fair. Women account for two thirds of the world’s illiterates. Thus gender, as well as sexual orientation, is a cross cutting concern addressed in GLOBUS.

In accordance with GLOBUS’ main hypothesis and existing studies of the EU as a value-based actor and human rights promoter on global negotiation arenas, the general expectation as for EU’s external approach to gender is a predominant fit with the conception of justice as impartiality. Yet it may well be that this conception is tempered and challenged by justice as non-domination and as mutual recognition concerns. GLOBUS investigates to what extent EU relations with third states start from the premise that all human beings, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, are entitled to the same rights, opportunities and duties as well as why this might not be the case.

This horizontal research stream is pursued within each of the four thematic policy issues (climate change, trade and development, migration and cooperation and conflict) but is also drawn together within specific publications and events.