Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Highlights
Introduction
Is it possible to achieve a just and real world order? In response to this serious question, different theories have been presented. Among the most important of these answers, three theories of realism, the normative theory of egalitarian cosmopolitans, and the theory of the law of people of John Rawls have been presented. The purpose of this article is to answer the question, which of these theories is more justified and reasonable? The theory of realism that governs the world system considers it impossible and utopian to reach a just and acceptable order for all countries and nations. The ontological assumptions of this theory are based on human self-interest and power-seeking nature. Based on this theory, ethics and justice have no place in the international system, and what is real is the conflict over resources and interests. State-centricity, war and strife for survival and self-help, and finally and in the most optimistic state of mutual deterrence, can protect temporary peace.
However, some theorists have not found it impossible to reach a just order and have tried to present alternative theories. For example, there is John Rawls' theory of the law of people. Rawls believes that conflict and war are not the only driving forces of people. Humans are wise and at the same time reasonable creatures. That is, in addition to being calculating and profit-seeking, they can advance their instincts, desires and needs in harmony and compatibility with others, and prefer stable relative satisfaction over absolute satisfaction, but in constant conflict and fear. they prefer Therefore, cooperation and collaboration are among the fundamental characteristics of a reasonable human being. According to these ontological capabilities, humans can achieve a peaceful coexistence even at the global level. Of course, the nations of the world can be divided into different types: liberal nations, noble nations, nations under unfavorable conditions and under pressure, lawless states, and finally benevolent authoritarian societies. Except for the lawless states, a fair but real partnership can be reached under a hypothetical theoretical contract with other nations. The hypothetical theoretical agreement will take place behind the veil of ignorance and therefore it can be agreed upon by all members of the international community. Behind the veil of ignorance, none of the members of the contract know about the situation, situation and conditions of their nation. Therefore, they try to sign the fairest contract that takes into account their interests. The point here is that Rawls sees his principles under the title of "principle of difference" and the principle of "fundamental liberties" only applicable within liberal societies and does not see the need to impose liberal principles on all countries and nations.
On the other hand, egalitarian cosmopolitans are of the opinion that people, with the help of their reason, and by adhering to the two principles of "equality in basic freedoms" and "the principle of globalized difference" can reach a kind of consensus and reach a global agreement, in which the interests of all human beings regardless of gender, race and class are taken into account. Their ontological premise, like Rawls's, is that conflict is not the fundamental principle governing human relations, but humans have cooperated and collaborated much more throughout their history. Because they are wise and reasonable beings. But their most important claim is that the principles of justice cannot, as Rawls says, be applied only to the edge of the waters and are only suitable for liberal democratic societies. Limiting the application of contractual principles of justice to liberal nation-states is wrong. This principle should be applied globally.
Method
But the arguments of which of these theories are more justified for creating a just world order? To answer this question, tools for comparison should be used. In this article, the inference method of the best explanation is used. Based on this method, the evidence of all parties will be extracted first. Then they will be checked first in terms of form/appearance and then in terms of substance/content. In terms of form, a valid moral argument should at least include a moral premise, a descriptive/immoral premise, and a moral conclusion.
Findings
According to criterion, it is clear at the very beginning that the theory of realism lacks a moral premise. Because it does not consider international politics to be the place of ethics and values. Therefore, it cannot give moral conclusions. The theory of realism cannot claim a just world order. Even if its immoral/descriptive introduction is honest and justified. However, it is still possible to discuss the ontological premise of realism. It seems that, contrary to the opinion of realists, humans, as wise and reasonable creatures, have cooperative and collaborative tendencies, apart from competitive instincts. In order to achieve a just order at the global level, we can rely on these strong and common drivers of people and strengthen it. Therefore, realism faces many problems.
On the other hand, in terms of form, the two theories of the law of people, Rawls and egalitarian cosmopolitans, are valid: they both have moral premises and immoral premises. And the investigations can be continued by examining the substance and content of the theories. By examining the descriptive premises of these two theories, it seems that the descriptive premises of Rawls's theory is more justified. Because egalitarian cosmopolitan theory assumes that nation-states are collapsing with the emergence of parallel authorities. Therefore, power relations and competition no longer play a significant role. While currently nation-states still play a serious role in global equations and there is no serious sign of their collapse, and the difference between nations and cultures is so strong that even the continuation of the existence of the Union Europe is also not necessary and definitive, let alone expand it to global dimensions. On the other hand, because Rawls's theory considers this fact and points to the basic differences between nations in culture and desires as a fact, it can be said that it has considered the efficiency criterion in real conditions. . Rawls' reasonable pluralism does not see the need to impose liberal values and ideas on other noble nations of the world.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is more compatible with the moral principle of independence and freedom of the members of the hypothetical theoretical social contract. Therefore, it can be said that although Rawls's ideal theory is not as idealistic as the theory of egalitarian cosmopolitans, it remains mostly within the framework of realism's utopia. That is, among these three theories, the best order that we can reasonably hope for is a world based on Rawls' law of people theory.
Subjects
