| The problem of extreme poverty in the Third World is not first and foremost a question of economy. It is above all a political one because it is the direct consequence of choices made by societies and of the organization of power at the level of the State and of various instances of the international community. Its object is the conquest of power and the distribution of wealth on a large scale. It is also a moral problem because the options taken collectively by nations and the society of nations tend towards or against justice and equality of opportunities for everyone. Extreme poverty and global justice form a binomial that therefore brings us back to the heart of political and moral theory. After the Second World War, political theory broadened its horizons. Since then, it also reflects on the exercise of power at the international level and the distribution of wealth at the world level. The phenomenon of economic globalisation creates a mutual dependency and important multilateral influences between the States. More than in the past, autarky is no longer something to consider. The dogma of the untouchable sovereignty of the States, that came forth from the Treaty of Westphalia in the XVIIth century, appears to be more and more obsolete in view of the common stakes that presently confront humanity. From which came forth the need for a remolding of the meaning of national sovereignties and for the founding of cosmopolitical rights for every individual on the planet.;That is why the binomial in question provokes more of a philosophical reflection on the concept of responsibility that extends not only to the national sphere, but to a wide cosmopolitical amplitude. The expression "countries of the Third World" may seem archaic, pejorative and humiliating. However, more so than those of "under developed countries" or "developing countries" it accounts for, without embellishment, the raw, brutal, and far from elegant reality of the political and economical misery that exists there. Though it may be obsolete, it quite clearly delimits the area of conceptual and geographical definition of our field of philosophical investigation. It designates the grouping of countries that are excluded from the economical wealth distributed among the nations. Given that economic power generally goes together with political power, this grouping is also kept away from the major decisional centers. Characterized by an extreme poverty, the Third World reality requires a meticulous analysis of the causes of this extreme economical and political marginalization.;A typology of the notion of responsibility offers a conceptual figure of this reality with a geometry of six angles: causality, morality, capacity, community, result and solidarity, as foundations for reparation. These aspects, under which responsibility is studied, are overseen by philosophical doctrines of consequentialist, utilitarian, deontological and teleogical type. The typology of responsibility gives rise to many solutions: bringing aid through philanthropy in helping to save lives; establishing and assigning responsibilities so that the mistakes of the past and the present be repaired both at the national and international levels; promoting the obligation to protect in a healthy international context that takes into consideration the negative duty not to harm the most disadvantaged of the planet; institutionalizing the transboundary rules of justice as well as of cosmopolitical rights. Finally, by omniresponsibility we will understand this as the responsibility of all towards those who endure the throes of extreme poverty in the Third World. Far from being a catch-all concept, it is an ensemble of shared responsibilities for identifiable actors on the world scene, with the view of coreparation due to the victims of global injustice. It aims at a telos: the blossoming of the welfare of the citizen of the world. |
