Responding to Multiple Global Challenges
Global Priorities, Global Scarcities, and Global Harms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6146958 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Luke Glanville (0000-0002-0235-1846, Australian National University), James Pattison (0000-0002-6938-2321, University of Manchester) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2024-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Studies Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2634-3797 • E-ISSN: 2634-3797 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/isagsq/ksae038 |
| OpenAlex | W4399307893 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 59 |
States face a range of multiple, ongoing global challenges that appear to be increasing each year. In this article, we argue that a three-tiered approach is needed to think through how states should respond to the multiple challenges that they face. The first tier has us ask how states should prioritize among the many global issues, threats, and crises that confront them under conditions of scarce resources. We demonstrate the need for both ideal and nonideal theorizing about how states should prioritize their global responsibilities. The second tier has us consider how these feasibility constraints might be challenged and overcome. And the third tier has us examine how states need to refrain from contributing to the very global harms that they then need to address. In combination, these second and third tiers have us ask what steps can and should be taken to make the world itself more ideal and thus to overcome, or at least significantly reduce, the need for states to prioritize among global challenges in the first place. A more complete reckoning with the demands of global justice, we argue, requires engagement with all three tiers. That is, we need to not only consider (1) how states should prioritize the use of scarce resources, but also to (2) problematize states’ rhetoric of scarcity and (3) interrogate how states are commonly implicated in the production of the same global vulnerabilities and global crises that they seek (insufficiently) to address
Business · Global health · Political science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Health and Conflict Studies · International Development and Aid · Law
Strategic Use of Resettlement
Cosmopolitan War
The Imperative for Climate Action to Protect Health
Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19
Austerity
Towards a ‘Non‐Ideal’ Non‐Ideal Theory
Human Dignity and Social Justice
Just Responsibility
National Responsibility and Global Justice
No Refuge
Strangers in Our Midst
Can Institutions Have Responsibilities?
Global Justice
Justice and Feasibility
Human Dignity and Human Rights
The Problem of Global Justice
State Borrowing and Global Responsibilities
Opportunity Costs Pacifism
Migration in Political Theory
Justice without Borders
Asylum as Reparation
Poverty and Famines
Climate and Conflict
Reconsidering Reparations
Localization is Self-Determination
First steps toward a nonideal theory of justice
Plunder in the Post-Colonial Era
The primacy of domestic politics and the reproduction of poverty and insecurity
Understanding Political Feasibility
Imperialist appropriation in the world economy
Providing decent living with minimum energy
Where to Protect? Prioritization and the Responsibility to Protect
Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries
The new politics and geographies of scarcity
Narratives of scarcity
Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory
Political Feasibility
Ideal and Nonideal Theory
The International Responsibility to Protect in a Post-Liberal Order
Covid-19 and the Sacrificial International Order
Nonideal theory and compliance—A clarification
The feasibility issue
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |