Distributive Justice, Basic Rights, and Mercy: The Boundaries of Democratic Countries' Humanitarian Obligations

Abstract

ABSTRACTDrawing on John Locke, I conceptualize the legitimate democratic government as a fair arbiter notonly between its own citizens but also between its citizens and foreign peoples, given that it shouldrespect the moral equality of all persons. Citizens have a duty of distributive justice toward oneanother and a duty to do their fair share of supporting the basic rights of foreigners, and thegovernment is obliged to enforce each of these duties separately. However, the government shouldgain an express consent from the citizens before enforcing their duty toward the foreigners beyondthe citizens’ fair share if the citizens’ sacrifices for them turn out to be excessive, because only thecitizens themselves qua free agents can choose whether to be merciful and thereby endure suchheroic sacrifices. Among the three different ways that a country can assist foreign refugees – financialassistance, temporary protection, and permanent settlement – permanent settlement could require anexcessive sacrifice on the host country by threatening its citizens’ basic rights, domestic distributivejustice, and national identity, depending on each host country’s unique circumstances. Aninternationalized tradable quota system (TQS) can assign a fair share of refugee burden acrossdifferent countries by taking into account the different levels of costs associated with the differentmethods of assistance. The TQS also faces some ethical objections, one of which is that it coulddeprive the refugees’ right to choose a country they would permanently settle in. I respond that onlythe countries responsible for the refugee crisis should be subject to the refugees’ choice.