Thinking globally, acting nationally: Negotiating the duties of justice within the first world agricultural protectionism debate at the World Trade Organization

This dissertation accomplishes two goals: first, it assesses the validity of claims debated at the World Trade Organization regarding first world agricultural protectionism; second, it assesses the adequacy of three conceptions of justice to meet the needs of an increasingly interconnected world. Three contemporary approaches to justice that address the question of the proper role of national membership and obligations to compatriots in a global context are examined: Michael Walzer's work representing traditional "bounded" justice; Darrel Moellendorf's understanding of cosmopolitan justice; and Samuel Scheffler's proposal for a moderate cosmopolitan justice. The dissertation then analyzes arguments about protectionism made by the United States, representing the positions of developed countries, and by developing countries and their alliances, including the G-20 and G-33.;The dissertation concludes that Scheffler's version of moderate cosmopolitanism is the most adequate of the theories examined in its incorporation of principles of global justice within a theory that also acknowledges the demands of domestic (social) justice. It further concludes that agricultural protectionism as currently practiced in the United States cannot be defended on justice grounds. Although the United States has a valid claim regarding reciprocity, the ongoing harm caused to developing countries by the impasse in negotiations among developed nations gives weight to the claim of developing countries that protectionism must be removed. Protectionist measures enacted by developed countries with the intent of preserving a rural way of life or a particular culturally-significant commodity could possibly be warranted, but must be evaluated individually to consider fulfillment of the demands of both domestic and global justice. Protectionist measures undertaken by developing countries were found to be morally justifiable, given their intent in sustaining a minimal level of well-being for their people. In these instances, the demands of global justice can be seen as consistent with those of social justice.