چکیده:
John Rawls, to explain the concept and position of justice in the international arena, proposes principles derived from international custom that can reasonably be agreed upon by all states as a common and fair basis. In examining the foreign policy of 'liberal democratic states' in the international arena, he evaluates the relationship of these states with other states solely based on their adherence to the aforementioned principles. Thus, the relationship of a liberal democratic state with other liberal democracies or with 'decent states' can occur freely and equally in all fields; this relationship with 'stressed states' is only conceivable in the form of financial aid, and with 'law-breaking states' purely in the form of a just war. From Rawls' perspective, this would be the true concept of justice in the international arena; a concept that today has provided the necessary theoretical foundations to justify the tyrannical and unilateral behavior of global powers in the international arena.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Research Questions Considering the concepts of "right"(3) and "fairness" included in "A Theory of Justice" and refined in "Political Liberalism"1 and also based on modern contemporary conditions, Rawls considers only constitutional liberal democracies to be just; in other words, only these types of states are willing to properly implement the "two principles of justice"(4) regarding themselves, but if we consider the world to consist of two or more constitutional liberal democracies, what kind of relationship should prevail among them in the international arena?
As a liberal political philosopher, Rawls holds a prominent position in explaining the concept of justice within the domestic sphere of societies that believe in liberal democracy, and for this reason, many consider him to be the greatest moral-political philosopher of the twentieth century; nevertheless, his intellectual and philosophical efforts to realize the idea of justice in the international arena have received less attention, and his views in this regard have been neglected.
In fact, societies with democratic constitutions will not fight each other because, from Rawls's perspective, they see no reason to fight one another, unless they wish to defend themselves or find themselves in conditions where "humanitarian intervention"2 in unjust regimes becomes necessary for the protection of human rights; 3) The most important assumptions that provide the ground for the two aforementioned principles are that the parties to the contract are rational and reasonable peoples; they have a just government based on a constitution in the domestic arena that has been formed through deliberation and universal agreements, and finally, that these peoples have a moral nature.
(
, 
, 
)
