Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Johannes KniessORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The global justice debate has increasingly moved toward the analysis of concrete issues in global politics, such as trade, migration, or climate change. This raises a methodological question: should the demands of justice in these domains be theorized independently or in conjunction with one another? Integrationists have championed the latter approach, arguing that it is better suited to guide our practical judgments. In contrast, internalists maintain that each domain is governed by its own set of principles. This paper defends the plausibility of the internalist approach against integrationist challenges. By examining different interpretations of internalism, it first seeks to provide a clearer overview of the methodological dispute. It then analyzes various arguments for integrationism, showing that their implications are more limited than their proponents believe. Finally, it focuses on the question of practical guidance, highlighting the value of idealized domain-specific theorizing in guiding transitions toward just arrangements.
Author(s): Kniess J
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: American Political Science Review
Year: 2024
Pages: epub ahead of print
Online publication date: 05/11/2024
Acceptance date: 05/09/2024
Date deposited: 05/11/2024
ISSN (print): 0003-0554
ISSN (electronic): 1537-5943
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424001114
DOI: 10.1017/S0003055424001114
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
