[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]<\/p>\n
Convenors<\/strong><\/p>\n Mike Gadomski<\/strong>; mgadomsk@sas.upenn.edu<\/a><\/p>\n Eilidh Beaton<\/strong>; eilidh.beaton@kcl.ac.uk<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n *All times are British Summer Time (BST)<\/p>\n 12 :00pm \u2013 3 :00pm <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cWhen Immigration Law Is Unjust but Legitimate\u201d \u2013 Yuan Yuan<\/strong> (New York University Shanghai)<\/p>\n \u201cInternal Displacement and State-Centricity\u201d \u2013 Eilidh Beaton<\/strong> (King\u2019s College London)<\/p>\n \u201cJohn Rawls and Transnational Migration Justice\u201d \u2013 Juliette Monvoisin<\/strong> (ISJPS \/ Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2 :00pm \u2013 5 :00pm <\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cInternationalism and Political Normativity\u201d \u2013 Mike Gadomski<\/strong> (University of Pennsylvania)<\/p>\n \u201cThe State\u2019s Right to Withdraw from International Organizations: A Restricted Account\u201d \u2013 Jelena Belic<\/strong> (Leiden University)<\/p>\n \u201cInward Internationalism\u201d \u2013 Tadgh \u00d3 Laoghaire<\/strong> (University of Gothenburg)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3 :00pm-6 :00pm<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe Marketisation of Human Rights Duties: What Happens to a Right When the Duty Bearer Is Not (Only) the State\u201d \u2013 Therese Boje Mortensen<\/strong> (Lund University)<\/p>\n \u201cThe Human Rights State as a Means to Global Justice beyond Nation States\u201d \u2013 Benjamin Gregg<\/strong> (Lund University \/ University of Texas at Austin)<\/p>\n \u201cRisk Management: The Illusion of Control in Indeterminate Systems\u201d \u2013 Benjamin Hale<\/strong> (University of Colorado) and Kenneth Shockley (Colorado State University)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Our world faces some pressing global problems. For example, we are currently in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and affluent states are beginning to roll out the first phase of vaccination for high-priority groups. These states make up just 14% of the world\u2019s population, and yet have secured 53% of the most promising vaccines. This situation has been described as unjustifiable \u2018vaccine nationalism\u2019, since wealthy countries have prioritised the health needs and economic interests of their own populations instead of supporting a just programme for global vaccine distribution.<\/p>\n One possible interpretation of these events is that they are representative of broader issues in the way we address global problems. In recent years, scholars have become increasingly critical of state-centric approaches to philosophical theorising and international practice. Cosmopolitans like Seyla Benhabib (2020) argue that the state-based perspective \u2018denies the radical fluidity, historical variability and interdependence of peoples, histories, cultures, and territories on both sides of the border\u2019. In the philosophy of migration, Alex Sager (2018) claims that state-centric approaches have \u2018failed to recognize how profoundly migration disrupts dominant political categories\u2019.<\/p>\n Similarly, Thomas Piketty (2020) suggests that although the current principles by which the world is organised seem impossible to supersede, \u2018in reality they stem from a very specific type of political-ideological regime\u2019 that must be overcome if we are to address problems like rising inequality and climate change. Arguing that \u2018the frame within which political action is imagined must be permanently rethought\u2019, he proposes a federalist model for transnational governance.<\/p>\n On the other hand, various scholars have defended state-centric ways of responding to international problems. According to Michael Blake\u2019s \u2018institutional conservatism\u2019 (2013), \u2018we have reason to take the forms of political institution we have as provisionally settled, and see what these institutions would have to do in order to be justified\u2019. Similarly, Gillian Brock (2020) suggests that \u2018administrative structures are important in our quest to secure justice\u2019, and since states are the best administrative structures we have, our first aim should be to make the state system legitimate.<\/p>\n This panel seeks to explore the value of state-centric responses to global issues in both theory and practice. We welcome papers on topics in global justice that examine the benefits and\/or limitations of the state system, including those discussing non-state political actors and various forms of transnational governance. Potential areas of discussion include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Abstracts should be 500-1000 words, and should be sent by Monday 17 th May 2020<\/strong> to Mike<\/strong> [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Global Justice Beyond States Convenors Mike Gadomski; mgadomsk@sas.upenn.edu Eilidh Beaton; eilidh.beaton@kcl.ac.uk *All times are British Summer Time (BST) Wednesday 8 September Session 1: States and Migration 12 :00pm \u2013 3 :00pm \u201cWhen Immigration Law Is Unjust but Legitimate\u201d \u2013 Yuan Yuan (New York University Shanghai) \u201cInternal Displacement and State-Centricity\u201d \u2013 Eilidh Beaton (King\u2019s College […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3596,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"Convenors:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nMike Gadomski<\/strong> (mgadomsk@sas.upenn.edu<\/a>)\r\n\r\nEilidh Beaton<\/strong> (eilidh.beaton@kcl.ac.uk<\/a>)\r\n\r\n
\nWednesday 8 September<\/h4>\n
Session 1: States and Migration<\/em><\/h6>\n
Thursday 9 September<\/h4>\n
Session 2 : States and Internationalism<\/em><\/h6>\n
Friday 10 September<\/h4>\n
Session 3 : States and Non-state Actors<\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
Gadomski<\/strong> (mgadomsk@sas.upenn.edu<\/a>) and Eilidh Beaton<\/strong> (eilidh.beaton@kcl.ac.uk<\/a>).<\/p>\n
\r\n\r\nOur world faces some pressing global problems. For example, we are currently in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and affluent states are beginning to roll out the first phase of vaccination for high-priority groups. These states make up just 14% of the world\u2019s population, and yet have secured 53% of the most promising vaccines. This situation has been described as unjustifiable \u2018vaccine nationalism\u2019, since wealthy countries have prioritised the health needs and economic interests of their own populations instead of supporting a just programme for global vaccine distribution.\r\n\r\nOne possible interpretation of these events is that they are representative of broader issues in the way we address global problems. In recent years, scholars have become increasingly critical of state-centric approaches to philosophical theorising and international practice. Cosmopolitans like Seyla Benhabib (2020) argue that the state-based perspective \u2018denies the radical fluidity, historical variability and interdependence of peoples, histories, cultures, and territories on both sides of the border\u2019. In the philosophy of migration, Alex Sager (2018) claims that state-centric approaches have \u2018failed to recognize how profoundly migration disrupts dominant political categories\u2019.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, Thomas Piketty (2020) suggests that although the current principles by which the world is organised seem impossible to supersede, \u2018in reality they stem from a very specific type of political-ideological regime\u2019 that must be overcome if we are to address problems like rising inequality and climate change. Arguing that \u2018the frame within which political action is imagined must be permanently rethought\u2019, he proposes a federalist model for transnational governance.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, various scholars have defended state-centric ways of responding to international problems. According to Michael Blake\u2019s \u2018institutional conservatism\u2019 (2013), \u2018we have reason to take the forms of political institution we have as provisionally settled, and see what these institutions would have to do in order to be justified\u2019. Similarly, Gillian Brock (2020) suggests that \u2018administrative structures are important in our quest to secure justice\u2019, and since states are the best administrative structures we have, our first aim should be to make the state system legitimate.\r\n\r\nThis panel seeks to explore the value of state-centric responses to global issues in both theory and practice. We welcome papers on topics in global justice that examine the benefits and\/or limitations of the state system, including those discussing non-state political actors and various forms of transnational governance. Potential areas of discussion include, but are not limited to:\r\n\r\n \t