Rawls’ Concept Of Moderate Scarcity And Its Relevance In Global Justice
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
RAWLS’ CONCEPT OF MODERATE SCARCITY AND ITS
RELEVANCE IN GLOBAL JUSTICE
Manaswee, LLM, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
ABSTRACT
This article examines John Rawls’ foundational concept of “moderate scarcity” and its significant implications for global distributive justice. While Rawls is often recognized for his "justice as fairness" framework and the "veil of ignorance," this piece foregrounds the condition of moderate scarcity that underpins his theory. Defined as a state where basic needs can be met but resources are insufficient to satisfy unlimited desires, moderate scarcity serves as a practical premise for determining just allocations in conditions of relative scarcity. The article further explores how this idea translates to global challenges such as food insecurity, healthcare inequality, and climate justice. It evaluates the contributions of scholars like Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Nagel, and others, who have developed or critiqued Rawlsian principles.
By integrating elements of game theory, the piece investigates how fairness, cooperation, and strategic decision-making intersect in resource-limited environments. Finally, it addresses the limitations of Rawls’ approach in light of modern complexities such as overpopulation, global inequality, and non-material determinants of justice, with particular relevance to India’s socio-economic landscape.
INTRODUCTION
Rawls is a much acclaimed and equally, if not more, critiqued author of great impact to the academic studies of the past and the present with not much loss to his fame throughout the passage of time. His major contributions include A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). While his ideas on justice, including “justice as fairness” and “veil of ignorance” are the main components of most discussions on Rawlsian philosophy, what I intend to shed light on is the key foundational concept that he used to base his theory, that is, the concept of “Moderate Scarcity”. About Rawls John Rawls (1921-2002) is one the most popular names in American Philosophers best known for his book “A Theory of Justice” (1971) that continues to have profound impact on contemporary political, social and legal thought.
His book presents a comprehensive expression of his theory based on the idea of “social contract”. The Concept of Moderate Scarcity Rawls introduces the concept of ‘moderate scarcity’ in this book referring to it as a situation in which the resources are limited but not as scarce as would be to not provide people with their basic needs. Thus, the concept refers to a premise where the resources are enough to have enough, but not as much as is enough to fulfil unlimited wants and desires. 1 This concept of Rawls is a central component of his theory of justice referring to the condition that in a world with limited resources, there must be a just manner to ensure allocation of resources such that everyone’s basic needs are met and that the least advantaged members of the society must be kept in mind while in such distribution. 2
RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE
John Rawls identifies justice as ‘fairness’ and for this justice he relies upon two primary ideas of ‘The Original Position’ and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’. Using these two ideas he intends to
1 JOHN RAWLS, An Idea of Justice 80 (Harvard Univ. Press 2009).
2 Id at 20
establish a fair and equitable society. The two main principles of this ‘Idea of Justice’ are3:
1. The Principle of Liberty: This principle aims at everyone’s guarantee for equal basic
liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, thought, and religion. These liberties are considered fundamental to human dignity and should be protected from infringement. Rawls is of the view that these liberties are essential in the life of individuals to pursue their own conception of the whatever they believe is a good life and to develop their talents and capacities.
2. The Difference Principle: This principle allows for inequalities in society but only if
they benefit the least advantaged members of society; that is to say inequalities are justified only if they contribute to the overall well-being of those who are worst off. This principle founded in the idea that it is fair to allow some people to have more than the others in as much as this inequality helps to in eradicating epitomical injustices. Rawls utilised the theory of social contract in determination of the principles of justice from behind a "veil of ignorance. " This veil of ignorance, he insists is the essential requirement to keep the person determining these principles from being affected by their own social or economic status, talents, or life circumstances, as well as that of those who are concerned in this determination ensuring that the principles chosen are fair and impartial.
4 Rawlsian Principles of Justice • Equality: Rawls' principles aim to ensure a fair and equitable society aiming at equality in opportunities for all. This means that everyone should have the same chance to succeed in life regardless of socio-economic or political status. • Liberty: With his principle of liberty Rawls aims to guarantee equal basic liberties for all supplemented by the difference principle ensures that inequalities are justified only if they are most advantageous to the least advantaged. This means that everyone should
3 Id at 21
4 Amartya Sen, The Importance of Rawls, 26 J. PHIL. 235 9 (2002).
have the same rights and freedoms and that inequalities are only relevant in advancing the interests of those most disadvantaged. • Justice as fairness: Rawls believes that justice is a matter of fairness; it means that justice is not about maximizing individual utility or happiness but rather about ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life. Rawls' principles of justice have been widely influential and his ideas on justice, equality, and the role of government have had a lasting impact on contemporary political thought.
RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF MODERATE SCARCITY IN GLOBAL
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Rawls's concept of moderate scarcity asserts that while resources are limited, they should still be allocated in a manner that ensures everyone's basic needs are met especially for the least advantaged. This principle is extended to the global context where disparities in resource distribution often exacerbate inequalities between nations and generations. By applying Rawls’s ideas, the moral responsibility of nations to prioritize equitable resource distribution, ensuring that future generations are not left vulnerable to deprivation. This approach not only reinforces the ethical obligation to assist those in immediate need but also fosters a sustainable framework for global justice that respects the rights and capabilities of all individuals regardless of their circumstances.
In this context moderate scarcity becomes a pivotal consideration in shaping policies that promote fairness and justice on a global scale. 5 Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity is particularly relevant in the context of global distributive justice. In a world characterized by significant economic inequality and resource disparities, the question of how to allocate resources fairly becomes a pressing one. Rawls' theory provides a framework for addressing this issue by suggesting that:
1. Basic needs should be met first: In a world of moderate scarcity, it is essential to
ensure that everyone's basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare are met before considering other claims on resources. This principle is often referred to as "difference
5 Klaus Mathis, Future Generations in John Rawls' Theory of Justice, 95 ARCHIV FÜR RECHTS- UND
SOZIALPHILOSOPHIE (ARSP) 49 (2009), (Oct. 04, 2024, 10:10 PM) https://www.jstor.org/stable/23680984.
principle."
2. Inequalities should benefit the least advantaged: If inequalities are to be justified by
law they must be the most advantageous to the least advantaged, i.e., any system of distribution should aim to maximize the well-being of those who are worst off.
3. Global cooperation is necessary: Given the interconnectedness of the global economy
and the interdependence of nations, Rawls argues that global cooperation is essential for achieving a just distribution of resources. He suggests that nations should work together to create a global framework for justice that takes into account the needs and interests of all people. John Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity provides a valuable framework for understanding the challenges of global distributive justice. By emphasizing the importance of meeting basic needs, benefiting the least advantaged, and promoting global cooperation, Rawls offers a vision of a more just and equitable world. Here are some examples of how moderate scarcity manifests in the world: • Food insecurity: Despite significant advancements in agriculture, many parts of the world still struggle with food insecurity. This is due to factors such as poverty, climate change, and conflict.
• Healthcare access: While healthcare has improved in many countries, it remains inaccessible to a significant portion of the global population due to cost, lack of infrastructure, and other barriers. • Housing affordability: In many urban areas, housing is becoming increasingly unaffordable, leading to homelessness and other social problems. • Energy resources: The world is transitioning to renewable energy sources, but dependence on fossil fuels and geopolitical factors continue to constrain energy access and affordability. • Water scarcity: In many regions, water is a scarce resource, leading to conflicts and environmental degradation.
These examples illustrate how moderate scarcity can have a profound impact on people's lives and well-being. Addressing these challenges requires a combination of economic, social, and environmental policies that aim to ensure a just and equitable distribution of resources.
AUTHORS AND THEORIES INSPIRED BY RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE AND
MODERATE SCARCITY
John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" has had immense influence and relevance on the works of successive theorists, inspiring numerous scholars to develop and refine his ideas. Here are a few of them that have utilised the moderate scarcity premise to distributive justice: Amartya Sen • Social Realizations: This is a framework for understanding and assessing individual well-being. It focuses on people's ability to achieve their desired outcomes, rather than solely on their material possessions. Sen favours admitting to all arguments and discussions that may lead to a newer understanding in distribution of resources in the ever-evolving world platform. His approach is more practical than Rawls in utilising principles of justice in the now than in rigid application thereof inconsiderate of the constant offshoots of economic and political inequalities in the world.
This approach both criticises and aligns with Rawls' emphasis on the importance of basic liberties and opportunities for all. Sen’s capability approach has been used to assess the well-being of individuals and societies in various contexts. 6 Martha Nussbaum • Capabilities and Human Development: Nussbaum's work builds upon Sen's capability approach, identifying a list of ten essential capabilities that all humans should have the opportunity to develop. These capabilities include things like physical health, education, political participation, and the ability to have relationships. Nussbaum's work has been influential in the fields of philosophy, economics, and human development, and her list of capabilities has been used to assess the well-being of
6 AMARTYA SEN, The Idea of Justice, 21 (Harvard Univ. Press 2009).
individuals and societies around the world. 7 Thomas Nagel • The Problem of Global Justice: Nagel's work explores the challenges of global justice in a world characterized by inequality and interdependence. He argues for a cosmopolitan approach that recognizes the moral claims of all individuals, regardless of their nationality or citizenship. This aligns with Rawls' emphasis on the importance of global cooperation and the need to address inequalities on a global scale. Nagel's work has been influential in the fields of political philosophy and ethics, and his arguments for a cosmopolitan approach to global justice have been widely debated. 8 Michael Sandel • Justice and the Common Good: Sandel's work critiques the emphasis on individual rights and liberties that is often associated with liberal political philosophy.
He argues for a more communitarian approach that emphasizes the importance of shared values and the common good. While Sandel's views may differ from Rawls' in some respects, he shares Rawls' commitment to justice and fairness. Sandel's work has been influential in the fields of political philosophy and ethics, and his arguments for a more communitarian approach to politics have been widely debated. 9 David A. Crocker • In his exploration of development ethics, David A. Crocker examines the interplay between capabilities and justice, which resonates with John Rawls's concept of moderate scarcity. Rawls posits that in a world where resources are limited, a just allocation must prioritize the basic needs of all individuals, particularly the least advantaged.
Crocker emphasizes that addressing moderate scarcity requires not only the provision of essential resources but also the cultivation of individual capabilities. This perspective aligns with Rawls's assertion that a fair distribution of resources must
7 MARTHA C. NUSSBAUM, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, 112 (Harvard Univ.
Press 2011).
8 Thomas Nagel, Rawls on Justice, 82 PHIL. REV. 220 (1973), (Oct. 04, 2024, 10:00 PM)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183770.
9 JOHN RAWLS, An Idea of Justice 80 (Harvard Univ. Press 2009).
ensure that everyone's fundamental needs are met, thereby fostering an environment where individuals can pursue their own conceptions of the good life. By integrating the capabilities approach with Rawlsian principles, Crocker highlights the necessity of recognizing the moral imperative to support the least advantaged in societies characterized by resource limitations, ultimately advocating for a more comprehensive understanding of justice that transcends mere resource allocation.10
GAME THEORY AND RAWLS' MODERATE SCARCITY
Game theory and Rawls' moderate scarcity principle are interconnected in their exploration of decision-making in the face of limited resources and constraints. While game theory is a mathematical tool to analyse strategic interactions, Rawls' principle provides a philosophical framework for understanding distributive justice in such contexts. Key connections between game theory and Rawls' moderate scarcity:
1. Strategic Interactions: In both game theory and Rawls' theory, agents are assumed to
be rational and self-interested. They make decisions based on their own preferences and the expected actions of others. This strategic interaction is central to understanding how individuals and groups respond to scarcity and make choices about how to allocate resources.
2. Cooperation and Coordination: Both game theory and Rawls' theory emphasize the
importance of cooperation and coordination in achieving desirable outcomes. In game theory, cooperative games often lead to better outcomes for all parties than noncooperative games. Similarly, Rawls' difference principle emphasises a need for cooperation and coordination to ensure that everyone benefits from economic growth and development.11
3. Distributive Justice: Both game theory and Rawls' theory address the issue of
distributive justice. Game theory can be used to analyse different mechanisms for distributing resources and to evaluate their fairness and efficiency. Rawls' moderate 10 David A. Crocker, Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's and Nussbaum's Development Ethic,
20 POL. THEORY 584 (1992), (Oct. 04, 2024, 10:19 PM) https://www.jstor.org/stable/191970.
11 James S. Fishkin, Justice and the Common Good: A Game Theoretical Perspective, 23 PHIL. & PUB. AFF.
180 (2007), (Oct. 04, 2024, 10:15 PM) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3557980
scarcity principle provides a framework for evaluating the fairness of different distributive outcomes and for determining whether inequalities are justified.12
4. Bargaining and Negotiation: Game theory often involves bargaining and negotiation
between agents to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Rawls' theory also emphasizes the importance of negotiation and compromise in achieving a just and equitable society.13 By understanding the strategic interactions involved in bargaining and negotiation, we can better understand how to achieve fair and equitable outcomes in the face of scarcity.
5. Social Contracts and Institutions: Both game theory and Rawls' theory can be used
to analyse the role of social contracts and institutions in shaping the distribution of resources. Game theory can help us understand how social contracts and institutions can facilitate cooperation and coordination, while Rawls' theory emphasizes the importance of just and equitable institutions for ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life.
6. Risk and Uncertainty: Both game theory and Rawls' theory acknowledge the role of
risk and uncertainty in decision-making. Game theory often involves analysing games with incomplete information or uncertain payoffs. Rawls' theory also recognizes the importance of uncertainty in the original position in which individuals identify principles of justice disregarding any social or economic differences.
7. Intergenerational Justice: Both game theory and Rawls' theory can be applied to the
issue of intergenerational justice, which concerns the distribution of resources between different generations. Game theory can be used to analyse the strategic interactions between different generations and to evaluate the fairness of different intergenerational transfers. Rawls' moderate scarcity principle can be used to ensure that future generations have a fair chance to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and development. 14 12 Amartya Sen, The Dual Role of Justice in Social Choice, 12 J. POL. PHIL. 9 (1999), (Oct. 29, 2024, 07:07 PM) https://www. jstor. org/stable/3557782. 13 John C. Harsanyi, Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations, 40 AM. ECON. REV. 276 (1977), (Oct. 05, 2024, 11:00 PM) https://www. jstor. org/stable/1827904. 14 Peter Stein, Intergenerational Justice and Game Theory, 26 J. POL. PHIL. 367 (2008), (Oct.
04, 2024, 11:20 PM) https://www. jstor. org/stable/40388770.
8. Global Justice: Both game theory and Rawls' theory can be applied to the issue of
global justice, which concerns the distribution of resources between different countries and regions. Game theory can be used to analyse the strategic interactions between countries and to evaluate the fairness of different international agreements.15 Rawls' moderate scarcity principle can be used to ensure that all people, regardless of their nationality, have a fair chance to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and development.
9. Empirical Testing: Both game theory and Rawls' theory can be tested empirically to
assess their validity and usefulness. Game theory experiments can be used to test people's behaviour in different strategic situations, while empirical studies can be used to assess the effectiveness of different policies and institutions for achieving distributive justice. In conclusion, game theory and Rawls' moderate scarcity principle are complementary concepts that can be used to analyse and understand the challenges of distributive justice in a world of limited resources. By understanding the strategic interactions involved in decisionmaking and the importance of cooperation and coordination, we can develop effective policies and institutions to ensure that resources are allocated fairly and equitably.
LIMITATIONS OF RAWLS' CONCEPT OF MODERATE SCARCITY
While John Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity provides a valuable framework for understanding distributive justice, it has also faced several criticisms:
1. Assumption of Sufficient Resources: Rawls' theory assumes that there are sufficient
resources to meet everyone's basic needs. Critics argue that this assumption may not hold true in a world of finite resources and increasing population pressure. In some cases, even with the best intentions, it may be impossible to ensure that everyone's basic needs are met, especially in the face of climate change, natural disasters, and economic crises. For example, in recent years, extreme weather events such as droughts and floods have caused food shortages and water scarcity in many parts of the world, making it difficult to meet the basic needs of millions of people.
15 THOMAS C. SCHELLING, The Strategy of Conflict 30 (Harvard Univ. Press 1960).
2. Overemphasis on Material Goods: Rawls' theory tends to focus on material goods
and economic resources as the primary means of achieving justice. Critics argue that this approach may overlook other important factors, such as social justice, environmental sustainability, and cultural diversity. For example, while access to healthcare and education may be essential for individual well-being, other factors, such as social inclusion, cultural recognition, and environmental protection, may also be crucial for achieving a just and equitable society. A truly just society must take into account a wide range of capabilities, including physical health, education, political participation, and the ability to have relationships.
3. Difficulty of Implementation: Critics have questioned the feasibility of implementing
Rawls' principles in the real world. They argue that it may be difficult to determine what constitutes a "basic need" and to ensure that inequalities benefit the least advantaged members of society. Additionally, the concept of a "veil of ignorance" is a hypothetical construct that may not be easily applied in practical decision-making. Implementing Rawls' principles would require a complex system of social and economic policies that take into account a wide range of factors, including cultural differences, historical context, and the specific needs of different groups within society. For example, Rawls' theory assumes that people are rational and self-interested, but in reality, people may be motivated by a variety of factors, including altruism, compassion, and social norms.16
4. Neglect of Global Justice: Some critics argue that Rawls' theory is too focused on
domestic justice and does not adequately address the challenges of global justice. They contend that Rawls' focus on the "original position" and the "difference principle" may not be sufficient to address the inequalities between nations and the need for global cooperation.17 In a world characterized by globalization and interdependence, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of economic relationships between countries and to ensure that the benefits of globalization are distributed fairly among all people. For example, Rawls' theory does not explicitly address the issue of climate 16 Martha C. Nussbaum, Capabilities and Social Justice, 33 INT’L J. SOC. ECON. 112 (1997), (Oct. 10, 2024, 10:04 AM) https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068299710161950/full/html
17 Thomas Pogge, Rawls on International Justice, 24 J. PHIL. 5 (1999), (Oct. 04, 2024, 10:15 PM)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25668832.
change, which is a global challenge that has disproportionate impacts on developing countries.18
5. Oversimplification of Human Motivation: Rawls' theory is criticised further on
grounds of oversimplification of human motivation in assuming that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. They contend that people may also be motivated by altruism, compassion, and other non-self-interested motives. 19 This suggests that a more nuanced understanding of human motivation may be necessary to develop effective policies for achieving distributive justice. For example, recent research has shown that people are more likely to cooperate with others when they feel a sense of belonging and trust. Despite these criticisms, Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity remains a valuable contribution to the field of political philosophy. It provides a framework for understanding the challenges of distributive justice and offers a vision of a more equitable and just society.
However, it is important to recognize the limitations of his theory and to consider alternative approaches to addressing the challenges of global inequality. For example, some scholars have argued for a more cosmopolitan approach to justice that emphasizes the moral claims of all individuals, regardless of their nationality or citizenship. Others have advocated for a more communitarian approach that focuses on the importance of shared values and the common good. Ultimately, the challenge of achieving distributive justice requires a multifaceted and interdisciplinary approach that takes into account the complex realities of the contemporary world.
CONCLUSION
John Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity provides a valuable lens through which to analyse the challenges of distributive justice in the Indian context. India, with its vast population, diverse social and economic conditions, and significant historical inequalities, faces unique challenges in ensuring equitable access to resources and opportunities. Rawls' emphasis on basic needs, equal opportunities, and global cooperation is particularly relevant to India. The country's vast population and significant economic disparities make it 18 Simon Caney, Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change, 19 J. SOC. PHIL. 425 (2005), (Oct. 04, 2024, 11:19 PM) https://www.jstor.org/stable/30041133. 19 Elinor Ostrom, Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms, 14 J. ECON. PERSP. 137 (2000), (Oct. 05, 2024, 11:30 PM) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646930.
essential to ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare. Additionally, India's commitment to social justice and equality requires addressing historical inequalities and providing opportunities for marginalized groups. However, Rawls' theory also faces limitations and criticisms in the Indian context. Some argue that his assumption of sufficient resources may not hold true in a country with a growing population and limited natural resources. Others criticize his focus on material goods and his neglect of social and cultural factors that are particularly relevant in the Indian context. Despite these criticisms, Rawls' ideas remain relevant and influential in India. His emphasis on fairness, equality, and justice provides a valuable foundation for addressing the challenges of global inequality and promoting a more equitable society.
For example, while Rawls' theory emphasizes the importance of basic needs, the specific needs of different communities in India may vary. In rural areas, access to healthcare and education may be the most pressing concern, while in urban areas, affordable housing and employment opportunities may be more important. Additionally, India's diverse cultural and religious landscape means that different communities may have different values and priorities, which assume relevance in the customisation of any pursuit of justice. Recent examples from the news illustrate the challenges of distributive justice in India. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the inequalities in access to healthcare and economic opportunities in India, with millions of people losing their jobs and struggling to afford basic necessities.
The government's response to the pandemic, including the distribution of food and financial assistance, was criticized for being uneven and favouring certain groups over others. The interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental issues in India also requires a holistic approach to addressing the challenges of distributive justice. For example, climate change is exacerbating poverty and inequality in India by disrupting agriculture and displacing people from their homes. Addressing climate change requires a collective action that takes into account all social, economic, and environmental factors behind climate change and the need for sustainable development. Finally, the pursuit of justice requires the participation of individuals, communities, governments, and international organizations. Governments can utilise such analyses to find
measures to ensure social justice and equality, while international organizations can provide financial and technical assistance to support India's development efforts. In conclusion, Rawls' concept of moderate scarcity provides a valuable framework for understanding the challenges of distributive justice. By considering the specific needs and challenges of different communities, the interface of such and many other socio-economic, and environmental issues, and the diverse perspectives of individuals and groups, it is possible to work towards a more just and equitable society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1. AMARTYA SEN, The Idea of Justice (Harvard Univ. Press 2009).
2. MARTHA C. NUSSBAUM, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development
Approach (Harvard Univ. Press 2011).
3. MICHAEL J. SANDEL, Justice and the Common Good (Harvard Univ. Press 1996).
4. JOHN RAWLS, An Idea of Justice 80 (Harvard Univ. Press 2009).
5. THOMAS C. SCHELLING, The Strategy of Conflict (Harvard Univ. Press 1960).
ARTICLES
1. Amartya Sen, The Importance of Rawls, 26 J. PHIL. 235 (2002).
2. Amartya Sen, The Dual Role of Justice in Social Choice, 12 J. POL. PHIL. 9 (1999),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3557782.
3. David A. Crocker, Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's and
Nussbaum's Development Ethic, POL.
THEORY
(1992), https://www.jstor.org/stable/191970.
4. Elinor Ostrom, Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms, 14 J. ECON.
PERSP. 137 (2000), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646930.
5. John C. Harsanyi, Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social
Situations, 40 AM. ECON. REV. 276 (1977), https://www.jstor.org/stable/1827904.
6. James S. Fishkin, Justice and the Common Good: A Game Theoretical Perspective, 23
PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 180 (2007), https://www.jstor.org/stable/3557980.
7. Klaus Mathis, Future Generations in John Rawls' Theory of Justice, 95 ARCHIV FÜR
RECHTS-
UND
SOZIALPHILOSOPHIE
(ARSP)
(2009), https://www.jstor.org/stable/23680984.
8. Martha C. Nussbaum, Capabilities and Social Justice, 33 INT’L J. SOC. ECON. 112
(1997), https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068299710161950/full/html.
9. Peter Stein, Intergenerational Justice and Game Theory, 26 J. POL. PHIL. 367 (2008),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40388770.
10. Simon Caney, Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change, 19 J.
SOC. PHIL. 425 (2005), https://www.jstor.org/stable/30041133.
11. Thomas
Nagel, Rawls on Justice, PHIL.
REV.
(1973), https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183770.
12. Thomas Pogge, Rawls on International Justice, 24 J. PHIL. 5 (1999),
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25668832.