Analysis of Iris Youngs Theory of the Social Connection Model

4540 Words19 Pages
Prior to Iris Young’s “Global Challenges” issues were viewed from a perspective which she calls the Liability Model. The Liability Model is based on viewing situations from a traditional legal perspective. A widely accepted view was that the scope of obligations of justice was defined by membership in a common political community. In “The Law of Peoples” Rawls says that principles of justice as fairness mutually oblige member of distinct societies to one another, yet do not apply to the moral relationships among people between societies across the globe. Charles Bietz challenged this belief in his work”Political Theory and International Relations” by arguing that there exists an international society even in the absence of a comprehensive political constitution to regulate it (Young 162). Bietz goes on to argue that ongoing economic processes, investment and trade connect people in all regions of the world and these relationships are often unequal in power and resources. Onora O’Neill argues differently but to a similar conclusion that the scope of an agent’s moral obligation extends to all those whom the agent assumes in conducting their activity. We have made practical moral commitments to them by virtue of our actions (Young 163). Iris Young’s essay on Global Justice she interprets both Bietz and O’Neill and expands on their views. She identifies these as transnational social structures and the injustices they generate as “Structural Injustices”. She defines a new form of social responsibility to address Structural Injustices which she calls the “Social Connection Model”. The Social Connection Model refers to the obligation of justice that arises between all participates in a structural social process with unjust outcomes. All parties who contribute by their actions have a responsibility to work to remedy these injustices. Her example used of the
Open Document