Ella: Táíwò as a Way to Understand Nagel's "Positive Obligations of Justice"

 In chapter 2 of Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò's Reconsidering Reparations, he explains how the 'Atlantic Order' and "Global Racial Empire" was created through continuous historical instances of slavery and colonialism of the Global South, by various countries in the Global North. As such, he emphasizes that "history is not simply a point of comparison to the present. It is a way to map the currents that engulf us in the present" (36). From this claim, he urges readers to realize that when current issues within the Global South are discussed, it is false that "they themselves are to blame for the continent's problems... this snapshot view of [political problems] neglects the role of colonialism in explaining the strengths and weaknesses of institutional structures that post-colonial societies have in place" (59). Essentially, the major issues of inequality, corruption, poverty, etc. are not simply caused by the inadequacies of public officials and structure within third world countries; that explanation is truncated, ignoring that the issues of the Global South are caused by the linear history of colonialism and exploitation these nations were subject to, and the accumulation of these inequalities that has only grown over time (27). 

In Nagel's The Problem with Global Justice, from his "political view," he claims that "a global or regional network does not have a similar responsibility of social justice for the combined citizenry of the states involved" (Nagel, 140), and that "mere economic interaction does not trigger the heightened standards of socieconomic justice" (Nagel, 138). Essentially, Nagel believes that because there is not a global sovereign, there is not a responsibility to uphold standards of justice across national borders. Separate nation-states and individuals within separate nation-states are not members of the collective society of a singular sovereign, so that responsibility of justice cannot be upheld. I think, however, that while it does not fit perfectly with Nagel's account of international obligations of justice (or lack thereof), Táíwò's account of "The Global Racial Empire" offers a view of how the world can be viewed as a sovereign due to the unjust global systems that have been implemented not only economically, but socially and politically as well. 

Nagel offers an account of how the government of an individual nation-state's have a esponsibility to uphold standards of justice for their citizens. He states that, "Without being given a choice, we are assigned a role in the collective life of a particular society. The society makes us responsible for its acts, which are taken in our name" (Nagel, 129). This is true of nation-states, but through Táíwò's historical account, it can be conceived of as true regarding the relationship between the Global North and South. In his historical account, Táíwò demonstrates that "The Global Racial Empire" has created unequal distributions of tax and wealth, citizenship, and violence, with the idea of cumulative processes as a precursor to this understanding. In such, it is clear that the Global North has subjected the Global South to a particular role in the global society, and the Global South has been forced to bear the negative consequences of such. Such an unequal distribution of global power has created "morally arbitrary inequalities" (116). Nagel himself admits that such inequalities exist internationally, stating that, "The accident of being born in a poor rather than a rich country is as arbitrary a determinant of one's fate as the accident of being born into a poor rather than a rich family in the same country" (Nagel, 120). But he goes on to say that "In the absence of global sovereignty we may not be able to describe the world order as unjust, but the absence of justice is a defect all the same" (Nagel, Ibid). I don't think the absence of a global sovereignty means we cannot call the global system unjust, because the Global North has systematically subjected the Global South to such inequalities, which is arguably a patterned institution of exploitation, as outlined by Táíwò's historical view. For example, Táíwò contends that "The Spanish Empire in the sixteenth century wanted to build a global system of wealth and power, into which any advantage they found in any part of the globe could be redirected. They succeeded. And we now live in that world" (22). 

Nagel goes on to state that "Insofar as those institutions admit arbitrary inequalities, we are, even though the responsibility has been simply handed to us, responsible for them, and we, therefore, have standing to ask why we should accept them" (Nagel, 129). Because we are handed arbitrary inequalities by the institutions that have governed, controlled, or deeply influenced our hierarchies and daily lives, we have a heightened imperative to demand justice. Nagel agrees, contending that, "the state makes unique demands on the will of its members... and those exceptional demands bring with them exceptional obligations, the positive obligations of justice" (Nagel, 129). Of course, in Nagel's account, this would not apply internationally. He demonstrates such with the example of immigration policy, claiming that "The required active engagement of the will of each member of the society in its operation is crucial" (Nagel, 129), and because non-citizens are not engaged members of society, "no justification is required that explains why they should accept such discriminatory policies" (Nagel, 130). Sure, a legitimate government would require the involvement of the will of all of its citizens, but illegitimate sovereigns surely exist, as Nagel pushed forward at the end of The Problem with Global Justice. While the will of the Global South was definitely not taken into account by the Global North when global political and economic structures were being built, they have still been forcefully subject to social systems created by the Global North, that unjustly create arbitrary inequalities. Thus, I believe that if we were to conceive of international responsibility through the issues brought up by Táíwò's idea of a "Global Racial Empire," we can understand how an illegitimate global sovereign already exists, which justifies oppressed countries in demanding justice from those that have historically controlled them.