Search

Begin New Search Author Mathias Risse

1. Response to Arneson, de Bres, and Stilz

Author:
Mathias Risse
Publication Date:
02-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
I must begin by expressing how gratifying it is that On Global Justice would receive such careful attention by three thoughtful colleagues. I will do my best to respond to their questions and objections. Let me start with Arneson. Since differences between us are large, I shall first say a few things about my basic outlook. Common humanity is one ground of justice. The distinctively human life generates claims, and their form is that of natural rights. However, explorations of how the distinctively human life generates obligations lead only to a rather limited set of rights—basic security and subsistence rights. Inquiries into another nonrelational ground also produce rather limited results. That ground is humanity's collective ownership of the earth. The principle of justice associated with it merely requires an equal opportunity to use natural spaces and resources for the satisfaction of basic needs. In particular, this result is incompatible with any kind of welfarist commitment. The sheer fact that anybody's welfare as such would be lowered or raised is not a matter of justice. If people share associations with each other (membership in a state, or being connected by trade, say) we can derive obligations from their shared involvement with these associations. But unless people do indeed share such associations, the obligations that hold among them will be rather limited.

3. On the Morality of Immigration

Author:
Mathias Risse
Publication Date:
03-2008
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
My goal here is twofold: First, I wish to make a plea for the relevance of moral considerations in debates about immigration. Too often, immigration debates are conducted solely from the standpoint of ''what is good for us,'' without regard for the justifiability of immigration policies to those excluded. Second, I wish to offer a standpoint that demonstrates why one should think of immigration as a moral problem that must be considered in the context of global justice. More specifically, I will argue that the earth belongs to humanity in common and that this matters for assessing immigration policy. The case I will be particularly interested in is immigration into the United States, where immigration policy continues to be a hotly debated topic. However, that discussion takes the form of a case study: the relevant considerations apply generally.
Topic:
Immigration
Political Geography:
United States

4. An Exchange: The Morality of Immigration

Author:
Mathias Risse, Ryan Pevnick, and Philip J. Cafaro
Publication Date:
09-2008
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
In his recent Ethics International Affairs essay ''On the Morality of Immigration,'' Mathias Risse argues that attempts to understand the constraints that justice imposes on immigration policy ought to begin from the fact that ''the earth belongs to humanity in common.'' Risse goes on to suggest that a comparison of population density statistics provides prima facie evidence that ''the United States is critically underusing the resources under its control'' and that, as a result, ''there can be nothing much wrong with illegal immigration'' (p. 30). Without suggesting that humanity's putative collective ownership of the earth is irrelevant to the constraints justice imposes on the formulation of immigration policy, I want to argue—for two reasons—that Risse greatly over-estimates the relevance of such considerations.
Topic:
Immigration and Population
Political Geography:
United States

5. Is there a Human Right to Free Movement? Immigration and Original Ownership of the Earth

Author:
Michael Blake and Mathias Risse
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
One of the most striking features of the political arrangements on this planet is the fact that it is divided in to sovereign states. The earth is carved into territories ruled by governments whose accountability to those who do not live there continues to be rather limited. This is striking because life chances depend significantly on the state into which one happens to be born. To be sure, in recent times, globalization has woven together, in highly complex systems, the fates of communities, households, and individuals in distant parts of the world; it is partly for this reason that hardly anybody now champions a notion of sovereignty that insulates a state from extern al criticism, or limits liability for how that state's actions affect foreign nationals. Nevertheless, state sovereignty persists as a political fact. The number of independent states has increased enormously through the major political upheavals of the 20 th century, and it is not clear that there is anything wrong in principle with states – or so, at any rate, we will assume in this study.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Migration, and Politics

6. What to Say about the State

Author:
Mathias Risse
Publication Date:
02-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
In a little-known 1677 essay by Leibniz, two diplomats wonder about the status of princes of the Holy Roman Empire. These princes obtained a great deal of independence in the Treaty of Westphalia, but nonetheless remained subject to the Emperor. Were they, at least those with sizeable territories, “sovereign” or not? While the Treaty of Westphalia is considered the Magna Charta of the state system, its historical purpose was to keep the Empire functioning politically. Conceptual clarification was not a priority. In response, Leibniz offered an account of sovereignty meant to shed light on the Empire's confusing political realities.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Globalization, and Politics
Political Geography:
Westphalia