Global Public Goods and Bads and Justice beyond Borders.

This paper has the following two interrelated objectives. The first aim is to set out and defend a novel theoretical account for distributive justice beyond borders. My approach offers a common basis both for the current debate on the scope and for the ongoing dispute about the site of justice. First, in light of the deadlock in the debate between statism and cosmopolitanism on the scope of justice, my framework offers a common theoretical lens that makes it possible not only to assess these positions but to move beyond them. Second, my framework also offers a new perspective on the dispute about the site of justice, i.e. the type of objects to which justice is applicable, which is closely linked to the debate about whether the existence of institutions is a necessary condition for obligations of justice to arise. Going beyond a dichotomous approach not just in terms of the scope but also in terms of the site of justice, my theoretical framework shows that justice is not just triggered in the context of existing institutions but that certain types of interaction or even mere impact may suffice, under specific conditions, to give rise to demands of justice. The second objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the concept of global public goods, e.g. financial stability, and global public bads, e.g. climate change, raises profound and unprecedented questions of justice. Surprisingly, this concept - despite its striking relevance - has hardly played any role in discussions about justice. The paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature. I argue that reflection on global public goods and global public bads strengthens the theoretical framework I set out in the first part of the paper and generates key new insights into the ongoing debate about the scope and site of justice beyond borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]