In On Trade Justice, Risse and Wollner defend an account of trade justice on which the central requirement, applying to both states and firms, is a requirement of non-exploitation. On their view, trade exploitation consists in ‘power-induced failure of reciprocity’, which generates an unfair distribution of the benefits and burdens associated with trade relationships. In this paper, I argue that while there are many appealing features of Risse and Wollner’s account, their discussion does not articulate and develop the unified picture of states’ and firms’ obligations that they aim to provide as clearly as it might have. In particular, it is, I claim, unclear exactly how they understand the relationship between the fairness-based requirements that apply to states and those that apply to firms. I argue that there are two types of accounts that they might accept: a transactional account and a structural account. I offer reasons to think that there are reasons to prefer a structural account. In addition, I note some of the key implications of accepting such an account, and suggest that if Risse and Wollner accept these implications and revise other aspects of their view accordingly, the result is a plausible and unified account of what trade justice requires.
For helpful written comments, I am grateful to Christina Skinner. I have also benefitted from discussions with Vince Buccola, Rob Hughes, Julian Jonker, and Amy Sepinwall.
Berkey, B. 2017. “Benefiting from Unjust Acts and Benefiting from Injustice: Historical Emissions and the Beneficiary Pays Principle.” In Climate Justice and Historical Emissions, edited by L. Meyer, and P. Sanklecha, 123–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107706835.007Search in Google Scholar
Berkey, B. 2021. “Sweatshops, Structural Injustice, and the Wrong of Exploitation: Why Multinational Corporations Have Positive Duties to the Global Poor.” Journal of Business Ethics 169 (1): 43–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04299-1.Search in Google Scholar
Berkey, B. Forthcoming. “Who is Wronged by Wrongful Exploitation?” In Exploitation: Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, edited by B. Ferguson, and M. Zwolinski. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Butt, D. 2014. “A Doctrine Quite New and Altogether Untenable: Defending the Beneficiary Pays Principle.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (4): 336–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12073.Search in Google Scholar
Faraci, D. 2019. “Wage Exploitation and the Nonworseness Claim: Allowing the Wrong, To Do More Good.” Business Ethics Quarterly 29 (2): 169–88, https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2018.28.Search in Google Scholar
Karnein, A. 2017. “Asking Beneficiaries to Pay for Past Pollution.” In Climate Justice and Historical Emissions, edited by L. Meyer, and P. Sanklecha, 107–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107706835.006Search in Google Scholar
Meckled-Garcia, S. 2014. “Does the WTO Violate Human Rights (and Do I Help It)? Beyond the Metaphor of Culpability for Systemic Global Poverty.” Political Studies 62 (2): 435–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12036.Search in Google Scholar
Meyers, C. 2004. “Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops.” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3): 319–33, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00235.x.Search in Google Scholar
Risse, M. 2012. On Global Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wollner, G. 2019. “Anonymous Exploitation: Non-individual, Non-agential, and Structural.” Review of Social Economy 77 (2): 143–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2018.1525758.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston