Description
It has become commonplace to conceptualize justice in the context of international trade primarily in terms of equality of treatment in the application of common rules, reciprocity and equal obligations, parity of participation, and/or distribution. I take issue with this equivalence. Such equivalence is particularly problematic from the perspective of small developing states. Vulnerabilities associated with size, location and governance capacity circumscribe the way in which these states can participate: They are not equal players – they are different.
In this conceptual paper, a critical re-conceptualization of justice that takes account of difference is explored. Iris Marion Young’s framework, which focuses on the achievement of social justice in a domestic context by acknowledging social differences such as those based on race and gender, is adopted and its relevance argued in the international context of interstate (trade) negotiation so as to validate the notion of (size, location, and governance capacity) difference in this latter context. The point of departure is that while states are typically treated as equals in international law – as are individuals in liberal political theory – there are significant differences between states which warrant different treatment in the context of international (trade) rule-making.
In so doing, I offer a critical re-conceptualization of justice in international trade that encompasses global economic governance processes which allow for the development of state capacities for autonomous decision-making, and which involve inclusive democratic processes that acknowledge differences between states and the significance of such differences in the context of international trade.
