Fairness, Political Obligation, and Benefits Across Borders

Bibliographic Data

ID6355329
AuthorsDavid R Mapel (University of Colorado System, corresponding author)
Year2005
Volume37
Issue4
Pages426-442
Publication date2005-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolity (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-3497 • E-ISSN: 1744-1684
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300022
OpenAlexW2042745759
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited7

The fairness theory of political obligation holds that individuals who receive public goods produced by the cooperative efforts of their fellow citizens have a prima facie obligation to do their fair share in return by obeying the law. However, what happens when public benefits cross borders? In an interdependent world, have political obligations begun to extend across borders? According to some critics, fairness theory leads to the conclusion that citizens who receive benefits across borders acquire political obligations to obey foreign states. In response, this article argues that fairness theorists and their critics have confused transnational moral obligations based on fairness with political obligations, which still largely coincide with the territorial boundaries of states. There are two key steps in this argument: reformulating the fairness theory of political obligation so that it focuses on the distinctive benefits provided by the rule of law; distinguishing between fairness as a basis of political obligation and fairness as a requirement of justice

Argument (complex analysis · Economic Justice · Economics · Global justice · Interdependence · Law and economics · Moral obligation · Obligation · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Prima facie · Public good · Sociology · Environmental law and policy · Law · Political Philosophy and Ethics

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub