DPI201 I: The Responsibilities of Public Action for International and Global Affairs

(version updated Dec 15, 2014)

Instructor: Mathias Risse Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy209 Rubenstein mathias_risse@harvard.edu Office Hour: Tuesday 3-4

Faculty Assistant: Derya HonçaRubenstein 215derya_honca@hks.harvard.edu

Classroom Location: L 140

Class Days and Time: Monday & Wednesday, 2.40-4

Teaching Fellow: Tomer Perry (tomer_perry@hks.harvard.edu)

Section times TBD

GETTING STARTED

Come prepared for the first session. Pick up readings from the Course Materials Office and books from the Harvard Coop.

Course Description:

This introduction to ethical questions that arise at the international level is designed for students in the International and Global Affairs concentration. The course is organized around the human rights paradigm. That paradigm is currently the leading moral vision for the future of humanity. Human rights standards have become increasingly prominent in international politics, civil society and business in recent decades. This does not mean the human rights approach is undisputed. For instance, economic policy is often made from within a consequentialist framework that does not make rights central. In some parts of the world (especially in East Asia) there is also intellectual and political resistance to human rights, which are seen as a Western construct. International relations scholars disagree about the importance of human rights for change. This course introduces the human rights

1

approach and articulates such concerns. Connections to other classes in the IGA curriculum can readily be made from these topics. The course concludes with several sessions on human rights and business/fairness in trade.

Course Requirements:

Participation

Students are required to come to class prepared to discuss the readings. They are also required to come to section for the first five weeks. After that, attendance in section is optional but will count very favorably towards your participation grade. Participation counts for 20% of the final grade.

Short Papers

Students are required to submit three of the posted writing assignments, according to the following rules: (a) you must submit the first assignment within the first four weeks; (b) there must be at least two weeks between any two assignments – so if you choose to submit as the first assignment one posted for week 3, then the earliest assignment you can submit next is the one posted two weeks later: (c) the assignment is due within a week after the class for which it is posted (and due before next class). The length of the paper should be 750-800 words. Papers that are longer than 800 words will not be accepted. Please include a word count. Assignments require normative argumentation. Guidance for how to write such papers will be provided. The short papers count 30% towards the grade. NOTE: Do not confuse writing assignments and guiding questions!

Ethics Task Force and Human Rights Log

You will be assigned to an ethics task force of four to five students. Each task force will be in the same section. This group has the following tasks: (a) you will meet at least once a week to discuss (some of) the study questions and written assignments for the week; (b) you will submit your short papers on the same subject and discuss them beforehand (though the papers will then be individual work) – so you must work out a semester schedule of paper writing that is specific to this group and applies to the whole group; (c) you must keep a Human Rights log in which a member of the group each week reflects the thinking of the group on at least one of the study questions for that week, in about 300 words; (d) each task force must schedule one 45-min meeting with Mathias Risse and one with Tomer Perry (which can count as your meeting for that week). The Human Rights log is due on the day of the last class and counts for 20% of the grade of each person in the task force.

Final Take Home

2

The final exercise will consist of essay questions that are to be answered in no more than 2,000-2,500 words in total (as specified). Examinations will be available on Wednesday, April 29, and are due on Wednesday, May 6, 5 pm. Late examinations will not be accepted. All submissions will be done electronically, and assignments will be returned electronically. The final exercise counts for 30% of your grade.

Academic Integrity

Discussion and the exchange of ideas are essential to academic work, and in this course the Ethics Task Force introduces an explicitly collaborative component. However, you should ensure that the shorter papers and the exam essays that you submit for evaluation is the result of your own research and writing and that it reflects your own approach to the topic. You must also properly cite any books, articles, websites, lectures, etc. that have helped you with your work. If you receive any help with your writing (e.g., feedback on drafts), you must also acknowledge this assistance. Integrity is essential to academic life.

Professionalism in the Classroom

Professionalism is as important as integrity for a successful class. Do come prepared, and do come on time. Do not eat during class time. Laptop use is permitted but the presumption is that you only use the laptop for activities connected to this class. You are undermining professionalism in the classroom if you work on unrelated things.

Grading:

The HKS Academic Council has issued recommendations on grading policy, which include the following curve: A (10-15%), A- (20-25%), B+ (30-40%), B (20-25%), B- (5-10%).

Reading and Assignments:

Required readings: readings are posted on the DPI201 I course page.

Introduction

Class 1: Monday, Jan 26: Ethics in Precarious Times

Readings

Joshua Greene, Moral Tribes, pp 1-55 and pp 361-364

Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel, Blind Spots, pp 1-23

3

Jared Diamond, Collapse, pp 419-440 pp 550-551

Guiding Questions

1. What does Greene define as Tragedy of Commonsense Morality, and how is this different from the Tragedy of Commons you probably have encountered before? Why is this new tragedy important?

2. What is the phenomenon Greene describes as biased fairness, and why is it important?

3. What do Bazerman and Tenbrunsel mean by “bounded ethicality?” Can you connect this to situations in your life where this might have mattered? Why would this be problematic?

4. According to Diamond, why did societies collapse because of environmental problems although these problems must have been visible to them? What lesson does this teach us?

Human Rights – the “Last Utopia” and its Competitors

Class 2: Wednesday, Jan 28: Introducing Human Rights

Readings

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Paul Gordon Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights, Chapter 7 (“Proclaiming a Vision: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 2003), pp. 199-232

Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia, pp 120-158

Recommended Aryeh Neier, The International Human Right Movement: A History, pp 1-25

Guiding Questions

1. What is the difference between Article 1 and 2 of the UDRH? Why does it matter that these issues are discussed before even a right to life has been introduced? What relevance does this have for today?

2. Why does Moyn call human rights “the last utopia?” Are you comfortable endorsing this “last utopia”? Why or why not?

4

3. We learn from Lauren that the Human Rights Commission was a rather diverse group by the standards of the time. Does the composition of this committee matter for the legitimacy of the document?

Class 3: Monday, February 2: Arguing for Human Rights – Kantian Ethics

Readings

Thomas Hill, “Kantian Normative Ethics,” in David Copp, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (2006), pp 480-514

Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Bundesverfassungsgericht Press Release No. 11/2006 (Feb. 15, 2006), “Authorization to Shoot down Aircraft in the Aviation Security Act Void,” pp. 1-5.

Recommended

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 406 (“If we have so far (…)”) – 436 (“and of every rational nature.”).

Guiding Questions

1. What is the connection between human rights and Kantian moral thinking? 2. What is the formula-of-humanity version of the Categorical Imperative?

Think of three scenarios where somebody’s behavior violates this formula. Do you think the Categorical Imperative gives intuitive correct answers? Why or why not?

3. Can you identify the Kantian reasoning in the court’s judgment? Do you think we should ask all passengers to sign a document upon boarding that would give the government the right to shoot them down in a case of a hijacking?

Writing Assignment

What are the main reasons the court lists for striking down the Aviation Security Act? Present several objections to the court’s reasoning. Assess how the court could respond and formulate a view on the judgment.

Class 4: Wednesday, February 4: A Competing Approach – Utilitarianism

Readings

William Shaw, “The Consequentialist Perspective,” in James Dreier, ed.,

5

Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory (2006), pp 5-20

Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1:3 (1972), pp 229-243

Recommended:

Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapters I and IV

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapters I-III

Guiding Questions

1. Singer’s fundamental principle is the following: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Explain how this principle is intelligible as a form of utilitarianism. Do you find it acceptable?

2. Is Singer’s criticism of our way of life correct? Is it true that all of us are, when you get down to it, moral monsters for not donating more income to Oxfam?

3. Is there room within Singer’s approach for a notion of responsibility? If the drowning child had entered the puddle as a result of his own foolish choices, would that make a difference to our duties? If a bully had pushed the child, would that make a difference?

Writing Assignment “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, p. 231). Singer concludes that we are obligated to give away large sums of money for famine relief, up to the point where the marginal cost to us of doing so equals the marginal benefit to starving recipients. Certainly, according to Singer, we are morally obligated to spend our money on famine relief, rather than on new clothing for ourselves. Are we morally obligated to give away a large share of our discretionary income to relieve famine? Why or why not?

Class 5: Monday, February 9: A Competing Approach – Virtue Ethics

Readings

Confucius, Excerpts from The Analects

6

Bryan Van Norden, Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy, Chapters 2 and 3

Mark Timmons, Moral Theory: An Introduction, Chapter 10 (“Virtue Ethics”)

Guiding Questions

1. Confucius’s style of philosophizing is very different from what we have encountered so far. How do you characterize the differences? Do you find this style of philosophizing helpful?

2. In Van Norden, what are the two senses of “gentleman” that he ascribes to Confucius? Is this character an inspiration for you? Why or why not?

3. What is “virtue” ethics, and how is it different from the moral theories we have encountered so far? Do you find it appealing?

Writing Assignment

Choose one of the aphorisms (sections) in the Confucius chapters and identify a question that this aphorism answers or a subject matter on which it gives advice. What is the answer/advice provided by the passage? How could one support that answer? How could one object? What is your view?

Human Rights and Democracy

Class 6: Wednesday, February 11: Is there a Human Right to Democracy?

Readings

UN Website on human rights and democracy http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml

Thomas Christiano, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2): pp 142-176

Joshua Cohen, “Is There a Human Right to Democracy?” In Christine Sypnowich (ed.), The Egalitarian Conscience, pp 226-248

Guiding Questions

1. Does the UDHR actually support a human right to democracy? What precisely would such a right amount to? Does it matter if there is a human to democracy?

7

2. What is Christiano’s instrumental argument for democracy? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?

3. Why does Cohen not think there is a human right to democracy?

Writing Assignment

Morally speaking, is there a human right to democracy? What is the best argument in favor, and what is the best argument against? Which side do you support, and why? Consider the best objection to your position.

Monday, February 16 is President’s Day (Holiday)

Class 7: Wednesday, February 18: Meritocracy?

Readings (plus two videos):

Daniel Bell, “Political Meritocracy is a Good Thing,” Parts 1 and 2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-a-bell/political-meritocracy-china_b_1815245.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-a-bell/political-meritocracy-china_b_1815288.html

Daniel Bell on a Vertical Model Political System

http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/daniel-bell-vertical-model- politicalsystem/

Joseph Chan, Talks on “Democracy, Human Rights and Confucian Values” (March 2012) http://www.cornell.edu/video/joseph-chan-democracy-human-rights-and-confucian-values

Guiding Questions

1. What is Chan’s “Second Chamber,” and how do its members get selected? Do you think having such a chamber would be a good idea?

2. What does Chan regard as “Confucian civility,” and how might it help with improving democracy? Do you think promoting Confucian civility would be sensible?

3. According to Bell, how does meritocracy in China work, and what lessons does it teach to the rest of the world

8

4. How does Bell see the relationship between meritocracy and the one-person-one-vote principle? Do you think the one-person-one-vote system is a good thing?

Writing Assignment What do you think is the strongest argument for the one-person-one-vote principle? Drawing on Bell or Chan (or other theorists/views you are familiar with), how do you think one could resist that principle? What is your view on the matter?

Class 8: Monday, February 23: Reflecting on Singapore’s role in the World

Readings

Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1993), pp 146-160 and pp 227-248 (chapters 6 and 10)

Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First, Chapter 30 (pp 487-500)

Lee Kuan Yew, One Man’s View of the World, pp 205-216

Mathias Risse, “From Third World to First - What's next? Singapore’s Obligations to the Rest of the World From a Human Rights Perspective” (Speech given to the National University of Singapore Society, October 2013)

Guiding Questions

1. How do Amartya Sen and Lee Kuan Yew differ on their views on democracy (if at all)? With whose views do you tend to agree more?

2. Lee Kuan Yew thinks that Singapore will become mediocre if it no longer is a one-party system. Why does he think that? Should he be worried?

3. What do Sen and Lee say about the notion of “Asian values?” What do you think about their views?

Writing Assignment

What are Risse’s arguments for the thesis that Singapore should ratify more human rights treaties? How could one argue against that thesis? What is your view?

Putting Human Rights in Perspective

Class 9: Wednesday, February 25: Human Rights and the Importance of Order and Stability

9

Readings

Bernard Williams, “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory,” In Williams, In the Beginning was the Deed (Princeton University Press, 2005)

John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19 (3): pp 5-49

Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade, pp 1-7, pp 96-129, pp 289-292

Guiding Questions

1. Why does Mearsheimer not think liberal institutionalism can successfully promote stability in the world? Do you agree?

2. How does Williams distinguish between moralism and realism? What are his concerns about moralism? Do you agree or disagree?

3. What, according to Sikkink, is the Justice Cascade and why does she think there is one? Do you agree?

Writing Assignment

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This is the sobering position of the Athenian delegation in the Melian Dialogue. (See Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Chapter XVII (Sixteenth Year of the War; the Melian Conference; Fate of Melos)). Suppose you are Eleanor Roosevelt. How would you respond to the Athenians? What would the Athenians say in response? And who is right?

Class 10: Monday, March 2: Human Rights and Recent Work in Moral Psychology

Readings (and videos)

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), pp 19-30, 39-49, 450, 452-453

Joshua Greene, “Beyond Point-and-Shoot-Morality” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sChdbsbTNxI

Jonathan Haidt, “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives” http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, pp 111-130

10

Recommended

Jonathan Haidt, “How Common Threats Can Make Common (Political) Ground” http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_how_common_threats_can_make_common_political_ground

Guiding Questions

1. What are Kahneman’s systems 1 and 2? How does this distinction affect what we have discussed so far in this class?

2. According to Greene, what is “point-and-shoot-morality,” and why does he use that name? Why should we go beyond it? Do you agree or disagree?

3. According to Haidt, what are the moral roots of liberals and conservatives? Does his discussion reflect your own experiences in public life?

4. What, according to Haidt, is WEIRD morality, and what is problematic about it? Would you say that you yourself endorse WEIRD moralit?

Writing Assignment

What is WEIRD Morality? How could a supporter of WEIRD morality make her case? What should such a supporter learn from Haidt and the other moral psychologists we have discussed in this class? What should we do about WEIRD morality?

Human Rights in the World

Class 11: Wednesday, March 4: American Exceptionalism

Harold Hongju Koh, “America’s Jekyll-and-Hyde Exceptionalism”, in Michael Ignatieff, American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005)

Jeremy Rabkin, “American Independence and the Opinions of Mankind,” Chapter 9 of Law Without Nations (2005)

Michael Ignatieff, “Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights,” in Igantieff (ed.), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005)

11

Guiding Questions

1. Why does Koh talk about Jekyll-and-Hyde exceptionalism? What are the good sides of American exceptionalism? Do you agree that there are any?

2. What does Rabkin think American judges and policy-makers should make of the “opinions of mankind”? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

3. Is American exceptionalism is good thing or a bad thing? Why?

Writing Assignment

The Unites States government declined even to seek ratification of the Rome Statute because they were concerned that politically motivated trials would be brought against Americans. (Often, Henry Kissinger is mentioned as a very plausible target of such trials.) Given the provisions of the Rome Statute (i.e., those articles that you were asked to read), how warranted do you think such concerns were? What do you think are the best arguments that would justify the decision of the United States not to ratify the Rome Statute? What are the best arguments for the opposing view? Do you think the US should ratify the Statute?

Class 12: Monday, March 9: Human Rights in Confucianism and Buddhism

Readings:

Joshua Cohen, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Best We Can Hope for?” Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 2 (2004): 190-213

Henry Rosemont, “Why Take Rights Seriously? A Confucian Critique.” In L. S. Rouner, Human Rights and the World’s Religions

Christopher Gowans, Buddhist Moral Philosophy, pp 231-259

Guiding Questions

1. Explain Cohen’s distinction between justificatory and substantive minimalism. Why is this an important distinction? In particular, why would it be important that human rights are minimal in the justificatory sense?

2. Why does Cohen think human rights are acceptable to Confucianism? Does his argument persuade you?

12

3. What is social engaged Buddhism, and how can it integrate human rights, according to Gowan? Would you agree that Buddhism and human rights go together well?

4. Rosemont thinks that Confucianism is incompatible with human rights. Why does he think so? Do you agree with his reasoning?

Writing Assignment

Why does Cohen characterize his account of human rights as “un-foundational” and “free-standing?” Do you think he offers a successful justification of human rights? How could one object to him, and how could he respond? What is your verdict on the plausibility of his view?

Class 13: Wednesday, March 11: Human Rights and African Political Theory

Readings

Frances Deng, “Human Rights in the African Context,” in Kwasi Wiredu (ed.), A Companion to African Philosophy

Anthony Appiah, In My Father’s House, pp 173-180

Kwasi Wiredu, “What Can Philosophy Do For Africa?,” in Kawsi Wiredu, Philosophy and an African Culture

Thaddeus Metz, “Human Dignity, Capital Punishment, and an African Moral Theory: Towards a New Philosophy of Human Rights,” Journal of Human Rights 9 (2010), pp 81-99

Guiding Questions

1. How does Deng think that traditional African notions of participatory governance can be combined with the human rights language and thereby be used to criticize autocratic power in African countries?

2. What does Wiredu think philosophy can do for Africa?3. What do Africans share, according to Appiah, and what do they not

share? 4. Why, according to Metz, does ubuntu rule out the death penalty but

allows killing in the defense of others?

Writing Assignment

Immanuel Kant is famously supportive of the death penalty: certain crimes are so heinous that the appropriate response is to executive the perpetrator.

13

They deserve to be killed, and if the world came to an end tomorrow we should execute people on death row to bring as much desert into the world as possible. Much like Kant, Metz’s reconstruction of ubuntu makes the notion of dignity central. Why does Metz think imposing the death penalty is wrong? How could one resist Metz’s argument, both in terms of dignity and in other ways? What is your view: is Kant right, or Metz?

Special Topic: Ethics of Drone Warfare

Class 14: Monday, March 23: Drones

Readings

Ward Thomas, “Norms and Security: The Case of International Assassination,” International Security, Vol. 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000).

Frances Kamm, “Taking Just War Serious in Gaza.” http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/fm-kamm-taking-just-war-seriously-gaza

John Kaag and Sarah Kreps, “The Ethics of Drone Warfare.” Chapter 5 of Drone Warfare (2014)

Guiding Questions

1. What is proportionality in the context of just war ethics, and why it is important? Can you give some examples of cases where proportionality is satisfied, and other cases where it is not? What are Kamm’s criticisms of the current references to proportionality?

2. Do you think using drones in warfare is permissible? Why or why not? 3. Do you think political assassination is permissible under certain

circumstances? Why or why not?

Writing Assignment

What are Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns about the ethics of drone warfare? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Advocating Human Rights in Difficult Times: The Case of Alberto Mora (with Guest Lecturer Alberto Mora)

Class 15: Wednesday, March 25: Role Morality

14

Readings

Sir Michael Quinlan, “Controversy: Ethics in the Public Service,” Governance 6:4 (1993), pp. 538-544

 Arthur Isak Applbaum, “The Remains of the Role,” in Ethics for Adversaries (1999), pp. 61-75

Philippe Sands, “Torture Team” (2006), chapter 16, pp 131-140

Jane Mayer, “The Memo,” The New Yorker, 27 February 2006, available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/27/the-memo  (18 pages)

Guiding Questions

1. Quinlan says: “One may think a particular policy concept to be a square circle, and indeed within the confidence of Whitehall one may argue fervently to that effect; but once the decision is taken, it is a matter not just of duty but of professional pride to help make the very best square circle that effort and imagination can contrive” (p 544).

2. Where do Applbaum and Quinlan differ? With whom do you agree more, and why?

3. Do you agree with Mora’s actions as described in Mayer’s piece? Why or why not? Would you have acted in the same way under similar circumstances?

Writing Assignment

“These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were willing to throw away our values.” This quote by Alberto Mora is the concluding sentence of “The Memo.” Choose one of the administrators whom Mora refers to here and make the best possible argument for their behavior (using the assigned readings). How could one object to their behavior? How could they defend themselves? Where do you stand, and why?

Class 16: Monday, March 30: Role Morality

Readings

Thomas Nagel, “Ruthlessness in Public Life,” In Nagel, Mortal Questions (1979)

15

C.A.J. Coady, “Dirty Hands,” in Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, eds, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (1993), pp. 422-30

Guiding Questions

1. Coady writes the following about Machiavelli: “Machiavelli makes it clear that one of the situations generating the need for the ruler to act wickedly is the fact that others with whom one interacts cannot be relied upon to act morally, and hence conformity to morality is foolish and dangerous for survival” (p 425). Would you agree with Machiavelli on this subject? Why or why not?

2. If politics is the art of compromise, aren’t “dirty hands” inevitable? Can one succeed in politics without getting one’s hands “dirty”?

3. How does Nagel explain the moral peculiarity of official roles? Do you agree or disagree? And why?

Writing Assignment

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s play “Dirty Hands,” a Communist leader called Hoerderer makes the following statement: “I have dirty hands right up to the elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern innocently?” What is your own answer to this question? Substantiate that answer with arguments drawing on the readings and defend your answer against objections.

Human Rights and Business

Class 17: Wednesday, April 1: Exploitation

Readings

Karl Marx, “Wage Labor and Capital,” In David McLellan, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, pp 273-294

Karl Marx, “On Money,” in McLellan, pp 118-120

Robert Mayer, “What’s Wrong with Exploitation?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 24: 137-150. (2007)

16

Matt Zwolinski, “Structural Exploitation.” Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1): 154-179 (2012)

Recommended:

Robert Mayer, “Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility.” Journal of Social Philosophy 38: 605-619 (2007)

G. A. Cohen, “The Labor Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 8 (4): 338-360 (1979)

Guiding Questions

1. How does Marx define exploitation? Does his reasoning strike you as persuasive? Why or why not?

2. According to Mayer, what is wrong with exploitation, and why? Do you find his account persuasive?

3. Why does Zwolinski think that there’s nothing much wrong with transactional exploitation in many sweatshops? Do you agree or disagree?

Writing Assignment

Are sweatshops (as understood by Zwolinski) exploitative? If so, what would this mean, would it be wrong, and what should be done about it? Feel free to distinguish different conditions under which sweatshops would be exploitative, and feel free to distinguish also between different senses of exploitation. Consider the two strongest objections to the view you offer and explain how to respond to them.

Class 18: Monday, April 6: Obligations from Trading -- Business and Human Rights?

Readings

John Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights, pp 81-106

United Nationshttp://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusinesshr_en.pdf

Mathias Risse, “Fairness in trade I: obligations from trading and the Pauper-Labor Argument Politics, Philosophy & Economics 6: 355-377 (2007)

17

Guiding Questions

1. Do you think businesses should have human rights obligations? Why or why not?

2. How does Ruggie think about the human rights obligations of businesses? How would this be different from the status quo? How promising do you think this strategy is?

3. What kind of a policy priority should Ruggie’s proposals have in your home country?

4. What is the pauper-labor argument, and how does Risse assess it? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Writing Assignment

Some people think that only governments have human rights obligations, and that the business of business is business. How could one argue for this view? How could one object? Where do you stand? How does your relate to the views presented by Ruggie and Risse?

Class 19: Monday, April 8: Protectionism

Readings

“The Great Catfish War,” New York Times (July 22, 2003), pp. A18

Malgorzata Kurjanska and Mathias Risse, “Fairness in Trade II: Subsidies and the Fair-Trade Movement.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 7 (2008): pp 29-56

Oxfam, Executive Summary, Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalization, and the Fight Against Poverty (2002), pp 1-18

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994), Preamble and Articles I-III, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm

Guiding Questions

1. It is sometimes argued that the WTO’s mission is merely to contribute to the liberalization of trade. According to the WTO’s preamble, do you find this view vindicated? What kind of moral obligations do you think the WTO has, if any?

2. Do you buy Fair Trade coffee at the cafeteria? Would you do so if it were, say, 30% more expensive than other coffee? Why or why not? (Consider

18

here the discussion in Kurjanska and Risse.) How much responsibility does a consumer have to know about the circumstances under which the product she buys was produced?

3. Do you think that Kurjanska and Risse are right that farmers in the EU and Japan have a prima facie bigger claim to subsidies than farmers in the US?

Writing Assignment

Think about the duties that we have to others. Some duties we owe to all persons, simply in virtue of their status as moral equals. Others we acquire in virtue of cooperative ventures we have entered into, promises we have made, benefits we have received, harms we have inflicted, or other forms of interaction and relation. Still more stringent duties are owed to our fellow citizens in order to justify the coercion that we subject each other to under law—a singularly encompassing system of social cooperation. Now think about international trade, the effect on people in other countries of various policies to open or restrict trade, and whether people in other countries are owed anything more than what is owed to persons simply as persons. Is the US government justified in pursuing policies that favor Louisiana catfish farmers over Vietnamese catfish farmers? Why or why not? (Assume—perhaps contrary to fact—that these protectionist measures do not violate any law or treaty.)

Class 20: Wednesday, April 10: Trade as a Subject of Justice

Aaron James, “Economic Skepticism,” Chapter 2 of Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (2012)

Christian Barry and Sanjay Reddy, Sections 1-3 and 7 of International Trade and Labor Standards (2008), pp 1-11 and 80-85

Guiding Questions

1. What is the “economic skepticism” that James talks about in his chapter title? Do you think that skepticism is warranted?

2. How do Barry and Reddy seek to integrate trade and labor standards? Do you thinks that is advisable?

Writing Assignment

A topic related to the exercise of the G20 exercise of the week – TBD

19

20