Exploring the Recognition of New Common Concerns of Humankind

doi:10.1017/9781108878739.007

4 - Exploring the Recognition of New Common Concerns of Humankind

The Example of the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States

from Part II - Case Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2021

Alexander Beyleveld

Edited by

Thomas Cottier

Edited in association with

Zaker Ahmad

Show author details

Thomas Cottier: Affiliation:
World Trade Institute
Zaker Ahmad: Affiliation:
World Trade Institute

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter contemplates addressing changes in economic distributions within states from the vantage point of international law. It does this by considering the potential of recognising changing economic distributions within states and the adverse effects that flow therefrom as a ‘common concern of humankind’. At the outset, a contemporary conceptualization of the ‘distributive autonomy’ of states is provided in light of recent economic globalization. The process for recognising new common concerns of humankind is subsequently examined and theorised before the paper sets out the potential and utility of recognising a distributional common concern, arguing that the raison d’être for sovereignty, itself a constitutive element of common concerns, is the marshalling of the state in order to enhance the welfare of the individuals in a given society through the provision of peace and stability. The predominant utility of recognising a distributional common concern of humankind, then, would be to rebalance sovereignty in a manner that would place greater emphasis on effectively ensuring the welfare of humankind, something which can be better – or perhaps only – accomplished through international coordination and cooperation, actions which in and of themselves are less likely to occur under conditions of growing economic inequality within states.

Keywords

Economic inequality within states income distribution within states wealth distribution within states co‑operative sovereignty distributive autonomy economic sovereignty economic globalisation recognition of common concerns of humankind distributive justice SDG 10

Type: Chapter
Information: The Prospects of Common Concern of Humankind in International Law , pp. 199 - 246

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108878739.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Select Bibliography

Alvaredo, F. et al. (eds.). (2018). World Inequality Report 2018 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What Can Be Done? (London: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Baldwin, R. (2016). The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Besson, S. (2004). ‘Sovereignty in Conflict’, European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 8(15), 1–23.Google Scholar

Buhaug, H., Cederman, L. E. and Gleditsch, K. S. (2014). ‘Square Pegs in Round Holes: Inequalities, Grievances and Civil War’, International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 418–31.Google Scholar

Cederman, L. E., Weidmann, N. B. and Bormann, N. C. (2015). ‘Triangulating Horizontal Inequality: Toward Improved Conflict Analysis’, Journal of Peace Research, 52(6), 806–21.Google Scholar

Cederman, L. E., Weidmann, N. B. and Gleditsch, K. S. (2011). ‘Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War: A Global Comparison’, American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478–95.Google Scholar

Gallie, W. B. (1956). ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56(1), 167–98.Google Scholar

Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (London: Vintage).Google Scholar

Lowe, A. V. (1985). ‘The Problems of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Economic Sovereignty and the Search for a Solution’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 34(4), 724–46.Google Scholar

Lowe, A. V. (2008). ‘Sovereignty and International Economic Law’, in Shan, W., Simons, P. and Singh, D. (eds.), Redefining Sovereignty in International Economic Law (Portland: Hart), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

Perrez, F. X. (2000). Cooperative Sovereignty: From Independence to Interdependence in the Structure of International Environmental Law (Kluwer: The Hague).Google Scholar

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar

Sarooshi, D. (2004). ‘The Essentially Contested Nature of the Concept of Sovereignty: Implications for the Exercise by International Organizations of Delegated Powers of Government’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 25(4), 1107–39.Google Scholar

Sarooshi, D. (2005). International Organizations and Their Exercise of Sovereign Powers (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Scheidel, W. (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar

Stewart, F. (2000). ‘Crisis Prevention: Tackling Horizontal Inequalities’, Oxford Development Studies, 28(3), 245–62.Google Scholar

Stewart, F. (ed.). (2008). Horizontal Inequalities and Conflict: Understanding Group Violence in Multiethnic Societies (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar

Thurow, L. C. (1971). ‘The Income Distribution as a Pure Public Good’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(2), 327–36.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, C. D. (2013). A Contemporary Concept of Monetary Sovereignty (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar