Global Justice and Migration: Philosophical Perspectives

Global Justice and Migration

Migration is one of the defining phenomena of the twenty-first century. Millions of people cross national boundaries each year — some fleeing persecution, war, and disaster; others seeking economic opportunity, education, or family reunification. The movement of people across borders raises fundamental questions of justice: what do states owe to migrants and refugees? What rights should non-citizens have? How should the benefits and burdens of migration be distributed?

These questions are at the heart of the relationship between global justice and migration. This entry examines the philosophical dimensions of this relationship, drawing on the work of the most important theorists of global justice and migration.

The Scope of Global Justice

The most fundamental question in the philosophy of global justice is the scope of justice: do principles of justice apply only within national boundaries, or do they apply globally? Cosmopolitan theorists argue that justice is universal: the principles that govern the distribution of rights, opportunities, and resources apply to all human beings regardless of nationality.

John Rawls's The Law of Peoples offers a more limited conception of global justice. Rawls argues that the principles of justice that apply within a domestic society — the principles of justice as fairness — do not apply globally. Instead, the relationship between peoples is governed by a different set of principles: respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, self-determination, and the duty to assist "burdened societies" that lack the conditions for a just or decent political order.

Rawls's position has been criticized by cosmopolitans who argue that the principles of justice should apply globally. Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz argue that the global economic order is a system of social cooperation that generates obligations of justice, and that the principles of justice should apply to this system as they apply to domestic systems of cooperation.

The debate about the scope of justice has direct implications for migration. If principles of justice apply globally, then the distribution of opportunities across national boundaries is a matter of justice, and restrictions on migration may be unjust. If principles of justice apply only within national boundaries, then states have more discretion to control their borders.

Refugees and the Right to Seek Asylum

The most urgent moral question in the ethics of migration concerns refugees — people who are fleeing persecution, war, or life-threatening danger. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone who "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality."

The moral obligation to admit refugees is widely accepted in political philosophy. The principle of non-refoulement — the prohibition on returning refugees to a country where they face persecution — is a fundamental principle of international law. The duty to admit refugees can be grounded in the principle of mutual aid: when someone is in grave danger and we can help them at reasonable cost, we have a duty to do so.

The philosophical questions about refugees go beyond the duty to admit them. They include questions about the distribution of responsibility for refugees among states, the rights of refugees once they are admitted, and the relationship between refugee protection and other forms of migration.

Economic Migration and Distributive Justice

The moral status of economic migrants — people who move across borders to improve their economic opportunities — is more contested than the status of refugees. Economic migrants are not fleeing immediate danger, and their claims to admission are based on the desire for a better life rather than the need for protection.

The cosmopolitan argument for economic migration is that the freedom to move across borders is a fundamental right and that restrictions on migration perpetuate global inequality. The global poor are trapped in countries with limited opportunities, while the wealthy control access to the most prosperous regions of the world. The distribution of membership in wealthy nations is a matter of brute luck, and the inequalities that result from this distribution are arbitrary from a moral point of view.

The nationalist argument against unrestricted economic migration is that states have a right to control their borders and that the primary obligation of the state is to its own citizens. The welfare state depends on the willingness of citizens to support redistribution to strangers, and open borders would undermine the social solidarity that makes redistribution possible.

Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach and Migration

Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach provides a framework for evaluating the impact of migration on human flourishing. The capabilities approach holds that justice requires enabling all human beings to develop the capabilities necessary for a flourishing life. Migration is relevant to the capabilities approach because it affects the capacity of individuals to achieve valuable functioning.

For migrants, migration can enhance capabilities by providing access to economic opportunities, education, healthcare, and security. For receiving societies, migration can enhance capabilities by bringing new skills, perspectives, and cultural diversity. But migration can also threaten capabilities — through exploitation, discrimination, family separation, and the erosion of social solidarity.

The capabilities approach suggests that the evaluation of migration policies should focus on their impact on human capabilities. Policies that enhance the capabilities of migrants, receiving communities, and sending communities are to be preferred. Policies that diminish capabilities — through exploitation, exclusion, or the violation of basic rights — are unjust.

Addressing the Root Causes of Migration

The philosophical analysis of global justice and migration is not only about the obligations of receiving states but about the conditions that give rise to migration in the first place. The root causes of forced migration include poverty, conflict, persecution, environmental degradation, and climate change. Addressing these root causes is a matter of global justice.

The duty to address the root causes of migration can be grounded in several principles. The principle of harm: if wealthy nations have contributed to the conditions that cause migration — through historical exploitation, unfair trade policies, or carbon emissions that drive climate change — they have a duty to address those conditions. The principle of assistance: wealthy nations have a duty to help burdened societies develop the conditions for a just and decent political order, as Rawls argued. The principle of global justice: the global distribution of opportunities and resources is unjust, and addressing this injustice requires transforming the global economic order.

The relationship between global justice and migration is complex. Migration is both a symptom of global injustice — a response to the unequal distribution of opportunities and security — and a potential remedy for it — a means by which individuals can improve their lives and contribute to the well-being of others. The challenge for political philosophy is to develop a framework for migration that addresses both the immediate needs of migrants and the underlying conditions of global injustice that give rise to migration.