#GLOBUSkickoff
Work package 1:
Conceptual framework
• Erik O. Eriksen
• Helene Sjursen
• Thomas Diez
• Sonia Lucarelli
• Pundy Pillay
• Ben Tonra
www.globus.uio.no
GLOBUS indicators of justice
as non-domination, as impartiality and as mutual recognition
Erik O. Eriksen
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
www.globus.uio.no
Justice as mutual advantage
• The benefits of mutual co-operation
• The constraints that self-interested parties may
rationally impose upon themselves in order to realise their long-term interests
• Reasons based on self-interest do not fulfil the requirement of justice
• Norm-compliance for the simple reason that they are right, and that violating them is wrong
www.globus.uio.no
Political justice
• The fairness of background contexts in which decisions are made
• Global justice requires the creation and reform of institutions
• Justice demands that in a cooperative context, the actors are being respected as equals
• But ‘what we owe each other’ is different in different contexts
• Justice is ‘practice- dependent’ and it can be fulfilled in a differentiated manner
www.globus.uio.no
Political justice
GLOBUS asks what notion(s) of justice characterise EUs foreign and security policy; justice as non-domination, as impartiality and as mutual recognition
All would agree that one should
• Support development programs in poor and inefficient states
• Not undermine attempts to create strategic alliances of weak states in international forums
www.globus.uio.no
Justice as non-domination
• avoiding harms and establishing a fair system of governance.
• helping states and individuals as a duty of beneficence (charity); not of right.
www.globus.uio.no
Indicators of a policy based on justice as non-dominance
• Critique of illicit interference in spheres of sovereignty and state autonomy
• Upholding the institutions of international law
• Seek forms of cooperation with states external to the EU within the framework of international law
• help states and individuals as a duty of beneficence, humanitarian help
www.globus.uio.no
Justice as impartiality
• Upholding human rights and promoting an
international order in compliance with the law of the people.
• Securing a fair scheme of cooperation and the promotion of institutional reforms to meet the
demands of justice in the advent of a cosmopolitan world order
www.globus.uio.no
Indicators of a policy based on justice as impartiality
• support supranational institutions and legislation
• promoting a strong human rights regime
• likely to support humanitarian interventions
• support for global rights to political, social and economic justice
www.globus.uio.no
Justice as mutual recognition
• Justice premised on reciprocal justification – on deliberation among affected parties
• to ensure the capacity to seek fair terms of social cooperation for their own sake
• publicity and accountability to constituents and other citizens, to citizens of other political systems, and to future generations – parity of power
www.globus.uio.no
Indicators of a policy based on justice as mutual recognition
• Promote collaborative arrangements where all affected parties are given an effective voice
• Responsive to the claims of minority groups (global rights to cultural autonomy, education, language)
• Establish forums for transnational deliberation on what would promote global justice
• Objects of study: practices, interactons, institutions, procedure (norms and principles)
www.globus.uio.no
Three conceptions of global justice
Helene Sjursen
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
www.globus.uio.no
Non-dominance
If the EU were to contribute to establish global justice from a perspective of non-dominance, we would
expect it to support such coalitions and contribute to the reform of global institutions in order to strengthen the principle of sovereign equality of states.
www.globus.uio.no
Impartiality
If the EU were to contribute to promote justice in line with the perspective of impartiality, we would expect that it would seek to promote and strengthen collective institutions and cosmopolitan law in order to ensure
the formal rights of individuals as well as states
www.globus.uio.no
Mutual recognition
If the EU were to contribute to establish global justice in line with the perspective of mutual recognition, we would expect it to contribute to establish participatory processes in which justice claims are discussed and
adapted with reference to the specific context in which they are to be applied.
Climate Change Thomas Diez
University of Tübingen
Global Justice and Migration (2)
Sonia Lucarelli,
University of Bologna
Global Justice can have several referents: citizens (own’s citizens and/or third country citizens), human beings, specific subjects.
Different conceptions of GJ refer to different subjects and adopt different criteria of evaluation
JUSTICE AS NON DOMINATION
Referents:
• Third actors (countries and/or IOs) as far as agreements on migration and asylum are concerned.
• MSs within the EU.
In the end it appears as a form of Westphalian justice.
Guiding questions: to what extent the terms of the EU’s
agreements with third countries have taken into consideration the needs of both sides? Has the EU imposed unfavourable solutions to third countries and by which means?
JUSTICE AS IMPARTIALITY
Referents: human beings - refers to the ability of the EU and its MSs to apply (and develop) universal norms in the area of
migration, in agreement with universal human rights.
However: norms apply to categories of individuals and the way in which these categories are defined is then constitutive of their subjectivity and make them subject to a norm or not.
Another aspect of this principle of justice regards the justice claims of the EU citizens.
Guiding question: does the EU respect the human rights of the migrants?
JUSTICE AS MUTUAL RECOGNITION
Referents: individual subjects
• refers to the relationship between the EU and the subjective migrants and refers to the EU’s ability to recognise them in their specificity, taking their self-perception into consideration.
• Guiding questions: to what extent, and with what rationale, the terms of the EU’s policies towards migrants have taken into
consideration the needs of the individual migrants ?
NB: there are (at least) two ways to analyse the EU’s contributon to / compliace with each of the above
conceptions of GJ:
1. take each conception at face value and evaluate EU’s performance
2. Look at the discursive and practical narratives of
migration produced by the EU documents, discourses
and practices and assess the conceptualization of GJ
that is embedded in such narratives.
A two step analysis:
1. a “factual” assessment of the respect of basic rule and principles, and adding an analysis of the
implications of a subjective definition of the involved subjects.
Aim: to evaluate if the EU has avoided domination, has applied universal principles of human rights and recognised the needs of
specific communities and individuals (e.g. the Syrians escaping war).
This part of the analysis should explore also the relationship between citizenship and justice as well as between physical political borders and justice.
2. an analysis of the definition of subjectivity on which
the above norms are applied.
Ultimately the way in which the EU narratively constructs the subjectivity of the incoming
people, impacts on its ability to respond to justice claims in all three forms.
• Ultimately, the narrative construction of the subjects conditions the final result of justice practices.
Eventually, the way in which the “narrative power” is
used is constitutive of different results, even given the
application of the same norm.
Three forms of narrative power
• Legal narrative power - the definition (labelling and
bordering) of the subjects occurs in the legal documents.
• Discursive narrative power - the subject of the norm is defined by means of social and political representation, in discourses and images used by relevant elites.
• Practice narrative power - specific labelling and
bordering of the subjects occurs in the phase of the
implementation of policies and legal instruments.
Aim of research on narrative power:
• Tracing the forms of narrative power (the
concrete narratives and their embedded concept of justice)
• analysing the type of subjectivity that they have originated,
• exploring the implications of such subjectivity in
terms of justice
Example of narratives and their implications
• “humanitarian narrative”
tends to be inspired by an understanding of justices as impartiality, but may deny justice as recognition and hence may entail elements of domination. Such a narrative entails a self-representation of
Europe as a humanitarian actor inspired by universal values of human rights, a Kantian self-representation.
• “border protection narrative” or a “securitizing narrative”
both deny justice claims of incoming people and claims justice exclusively in terms of the response to security claims of the host communities. Such a narrative entails a self-representation of the Europe as a state/polity-like entity whose main duties are with
respect to the safety of its citizens – a Machiavellian self- representation
Example of narratives and their implications
• ”war victims narrative” (discriminating between migrants from war-torn areas and others) entails a certain definition of what means to be at risk in one own’s country. Such a
narrative entails a self-representation of the Europe as a judge and fair savior – a “Iustitia” self-representation
• The “economic utility narrative” (Europe needs skilled
migrants for its own economic needs) or the “demographic decline narrative” (Europe needs migrants to cope with its demographic decline) In both cases there is an utilitarian approach to migration, which denies any rights-bearing
subjectivity for the migrants, while is inspired by the concerns, rights (and justice claims) of the hosting community. A
“Communitarian” self-representation
MIGRATION IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF GLOBAL JUSTICE
• An evaluation in terms of global justice of migration would imply a serious reflection on the responsibilities that the EU/Europe has with respect to those migrating because suffering the consequences of processes that the EU/Europe has contributed to create or simply has not been able to stop: climate change; environmental catastrophes; severe poverty; etc.
• an ethics of responsibility applies.
Phases of research
Legal Narrative Power: Analysis of the legal documents, their provisions and their intrinsic narratives. What type of definitions of migrants, with which differences in the different systems and wit which implications in terms of justice?
Discursive Narrative Power.: analysis of the public in relation to migration: what type of narratives prevail? How are they related to justice?
Practice Narrative Power.: Analysis of the practices in relation to the management of migration. What practices narratives? How are they related to justice?
The EU and the rest: third countries and contestants. - Agreements, narratives and practices in the EU’s relations with third countries; Contestants at the European and global level (IOs; NGOs, organized civic society etc.): what are the justice criticisms?
Zoom 1: Migration and terrorism: A reflection into the links in the narrative and practice of governments and an evaluation of the risks in terms of justice.
Zoom 2: Migration and traficking: analysis of EU counter-traficking measures + case study on EU’s role at the 59th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
WP4: TRADE, DEVELOPMENT &
GLOBAL JUSTICE
Pundy Pillay
Background
EU Trade Policy: From Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) to Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
EU Development Policy: Aid effectiveness, partnerships, respect for human rights &
democratic principles
Key Questions
Which conception of justice (non-
domination/impartiality/mutual recognition)
underpins EU trade and development policies?
How does the EU contribute to global justice in the area of trade and development through this conception?
How does the EU approach compare with other trade actors and aid providers?
WP4: Task 1 – EU Trade with ACP
What is the EU’s contribution to global justice in its trade relations with ACP?
How does this compare with the multilateral system?
What are the implications of shifting from PTAs to EPAs in terms of the EU’s contribution to global justice?
Hypothesis 1: EPAs imply increased domination by the EU of the ACP. No expectation of justice
Hypothesis 2: EPAs as ‘tools of development”. Possibly “justice as mutual recognition”
WP4 will compare EPAs and the multilateral system while applying a justice perspective
WP4: Task 1 – contd.
Study of 3 regional EPAs – SADC (2014), Pacific (currently being negotiated) and Caribbean (2008)
3 country studies – Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa
All 3 of the above are in SADC-EPA , but found
different trading solutions with EU between 2007 and 2014 (period between initial deadline for regional EPA and its conclusion), have different development
status, and different options in trading with EU in the interim period
WP4: Task 2 – the trade-development nexus in a justice perspective
Hypothesis: Trade policies are characterised by a claim of
justice as impartiality
, whilejustice as mutual recognition
dominates the EU’s development policies Which conception is dominant where the two policy areas intersect?
Study of EU’s recently established Aid for Trade (AfT) policy
WP4: Task 2 – contd.
Assessing the AfT policy
EU prominent role in developing AfT
AfT involves technical assistance and investment in infrastructure to help countries benefit from trade agreements
EU has focused on pro-poor growth and regional integration
Which conception of justice matches the AfT?
Do implementation and outcomes match the
conception of justice promoted in AfT formulation?
WP4:Task 3 – Aid: North-South vs. South- South Cooperation
Assessing the three conceptions of justice to determine the most viable approach
Comparison of the principles underpinning the EU’s aid policies vis a vis USA, China, Brazil and South Africa
What are the implications of increasing South-South cooperation - could important aspects of justice be compromised?
EU has conditionality clauses – e.g. respect for human rights, democracy – justice as impartiality
Providers of S-S development cooperation (SSDC) emphasise
“sovereignty” – justice as non-dominance
SSDC often linked to commercial interests, e.g. China in Africa
Important: To what extent does the EU step outside the conception of justice as impartiality, and perpetuate dependence and exercise of arbitrary power?
WP4:Task 3 – contd.
Selected case studies from both North-South and South-South to compare aid policy
North-South: EU, USA
South-South: Brazil, China, South Africa
What conception of justice underpins the policies of the EU compared to others?
An adequate theory justice must include the experiences of the affected populations
Therefore we ask: a) How is the EU’s aid policy perceived and experienced in recipient countries?
b)Which conception of justice underpins the policies of other donor countries?
Cooperation and Conflict
Ben Tonra
University College Dublin
Work package 1:
Conceptual framework
• Erik O. Eriksen
• Helene Sjursen
• Thomas Diez
• Sonia Lucarelli
• Pundy Pillay
• Ben Tonra
Lunch
12.00–13.00
#GLOBUSkickoff
Administrative and organizational matters
• Helene Sjursen
• Ben Tonra
• Geir Kværk
• Marit Eldholm
• Johanne Døhlie Saltnes
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
Geir Kværk, GLOBUS Project Manager
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
• Organisational structure
• Project schedule
• Reporting
• Open Access
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
General Assembly
All partners
Project coordinator Executive Board
Work package coordinators
General Assembly
All partners
Scientific Advisory Board
• 9 work packages
• 8 partner teams
• Organisational structure
• Policy network
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no M1
Jun16
M12 May 17
M14
Jul 17 M24
May 18
M30 Nov 18
M32 Jan 19
1st reporting period 2nd reporting period 3rd reporting period (incl. financial certificates)
June 20 3rd review 1st review
Midterm progress report
2nd review
Potential audits until Dec 22 Keep records until Dec 25 M48
May 20
Kick-off conference
Concluding conference
Youth conference Student days
Bologna, Dublin, Johannesburg, Oslo, Tübingen Visiting
programmes Brazil, China, India, Russia BRICS
dialogue meeting Policy
dialogue meeting
Policy dialogue meeting
Policy dialogue meeting
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
Reporting:
• Continuous reporting
– Deliverables and milestones
• Periodic reports
– May/Jun 2017, Nov/Dec 2018, May/Jun 2020 – Scientific activity reports
– Financial reports
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
• Horizon 2020 guidelines
• Publications
– Green and Gold/Hybrid
– Self-archiving in repositories
• Research data
– Open Research Data Pilot – Data Management Plan
Open Access
Administrative and organizational matters
• Helene Sjursen
• Ben Tonra
• Geir Kværk
• Marit Eldholm
• Johanne Døhlie Saltnes
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
Communication strategy and plan
Marit Eldholm
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
www.globus.uio.no
Visual profile
Website: www.globus.uio.no
Communication channels
Newsletter, mailing list, social media
Internal communication
Intranet, mailing list
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
Communication channels
GLOBUS Newsletter
• Issued biannually
• Project publications, events and news Mailing list
• Input from all partners Social media
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
Facebook skjermdump
www.globus.uio.no
Website: www.globus.uio.no Twitter: @globus_h2020
Facebook: globus.h2020
www.globus.uio.no
www.globus.uio.no
Internal communication
Internal emailing list: [email protected]
• All team members at the 8 partner institutions
• Each member of the list can send an e-mail to all 50 project members
• Administered by Geir – to be notified if changes, additions, etc.
www.globus.uio.no www.globus.uio.no
Global Justice Blog
Johanne Døhlie Saltnes
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo
Administrative and organizational matters
• Helene Sjursen
• Ben Tonra
• Geir Kværk
• Marit Eldholm
• Johanne Døhlie Saltnes
#GLOBUSkickoff
