Silvia Mocellin
Global Justice: The Original Position “Corrected” by Amartya Sen
This presentation compares the theoretical model of Rawls “original position” with the modified version proposed by Amartya Sen. The latter author, though believing in the crucial role played by this model in guaranteeing the reciprocity and symmetry of parties, points out its limits. At the end of the presentation, I try to underline some ambiguities of Sen’s perspective, although emphasizing the importance of embracing a global policy, which valorises the individual and his various “identities”. The issue concerns the extension of the Rawls original position as “device of representation” to the international contract. The aim is to extend the liberal concept to the law of the peoples. The comparison with Sen comes spontaneous. In “Globalizzazione e libertà”, Sen examines the ambiguities that would arise following the above mentioned extension. Sen calls Rawls position “separatist” (or “particularist” in the national meaning): the sphere of the exercise of equity would be the national one, whereas the relation between nations would be affected by international agreements negotiated by representatives of single peoples. Sen criticizes this position, which appears to excessively restrain the possibility of the individual of belonging to realities different from the national one. Rawls does not address the role of direct relations – which set aside borders – between peoples with identities based on classifications other than those political and national (such as class, sex, ideology). Most of the trading and global culture is already based on direct relations between human beings characterized by their own principles and priorities. In order to give more importance to these various identification groups of the individual, Sen advocates a variant of Rawls original position, referring to the Smith model of “impartial spectator”. This model, which is more “permissive”, would solve more easily the issue of justice analysis within each group and of competition between potentially conflicting loyalties to different groups. However, the modified version proposed by Sen, which on one side facilitates the solution of issues not addressed by Rawls, on the other side rises new questions, such as the practical application of the “impartial spectator” model.