Analysing the EU’s role in the pursuit of global justice
When it comes to explaining the central concerns of global justice, there are broadly three approaches. Firstly, justice is about universal rights enshrined in international law. A second view contends that justice is more about the rights of states and so international law should not monitor how states treat their citizens. A third perspective suggests that justice is about respecting international law and institutions, while simultaneously recognising different histories and experiences. These diverse views present a challenge to the EU, which aspires to follow the first definition whilst seeking to avoid the alienation of its Member States. The EU-supported GLOBUS (Reconsidering European Contributions to Global Justice) project set out to critically analyse the EU’s global role, how it relates to notions of justice and how others view its approach, in particular countries such as Brazil, India and South Africa, all democracies and all part of the so-called BRICS group (the other two members being China and Russia). The researchers found a shift in EU policy away from prioritising binding international agreements and individual rights (‘justice as impartiality’). While the direction of travel is not yet clear, there seem to be trends towards both a stronger emphasis on state sovereignty (‘justice as non-domination’) and a strengthened concern for local ownership (‘justice as mutual recognition’). “While a notion of justice as impartiality seems to have underpinned the EU’s external policies, we suggest that the EU pays attention to the concerns highlighted in the notion of justice as mutual recognition, which emphasises different histories and experiences, with localised responses,” remarks Helene Sjursen, from the ARENA Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo and project coordinator.
Europe’s contribution to a value-based global order
GLOBUS drew on a broad range of methods including process tracing, comparative case studies and discourse analysis, with direct evidence found through documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation. In addition, the team conducted normative analysis, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to global justice. Amongst other findings, the analysis showed that the conception of justice as impartiality, in principle, presents the most robust defence of individual autonomy. Yet, due to weaknesses in global institutions and laws, a foreign policy resting on this notion alone risks perpetuating dominance rather than enhancing justice. This was found to be a particular concern in the EU’s relations with emerging powers, such as the BRICS countries.
Towards a new multilateralism
As well as presenting recommendations in a series of policy dialogues with various luminaries, the researchers published a series of policy briefs, covering pressing issues such as migration, climate change, security and conflict resolution, trade and development. GLOBUS also produced a policy brief and recommendations on the EU and the crisis of multilateralism. Here, GLOBUS suggests the EU play more to its strengths, as an economic and political power, by pushing for a revised multilateralism while pursuing policies that are context-sensitive and inclusive, and that acknowledge that one size does not fit all. “To ensure a stable global order it is important that people have a sense that the process of decision-making has been just. One way of doing this is to enable open dialogues that allow those affected to be heard,” concludes Sjursen.
Keywords
GLOBUS, justice, BRICS, institutions, laws, foreign policy, individual rights, impartiality, local ownership