Editing John Rawls (section)

===''The Law of Peoples''===
{{Main|The Law of Peoples}}
Although there were passing comments on international affairs in ''A Theory of Justice'', it was not until late in his career that Rawls formulated a comprehensive theory of international politics with the publication of ''The Law of Peoples''. He claimed there that "well-ordered" peoples could be either "liberal" or "decent". Rawls's basic distinction in international politics is that his preferred emphasis on a society of peoples is separate from the more conventional and historical discussion of international politics as based on relationships between states.

Rawls argued that the legitimacy of a [[liberal international order]] is contingent on tolerating ''decent peoples'', which differ from ''liberal peoples'', among other ways, in that they might have state religions and deny adherents of [[minority group|minority]] [[faith]]s the right to hold positions of power within the state and might organize political participation via consultation hierarchies rather than elections. However, no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. Peoples that fail to meet the criteria of "liberal" or "decent" peoples are referred to as 'outlaw states', 'societies burdened by unfavorable conditions' or 'benevolent absolutisms', depending on their particular failings. Such peoples do not have the right to mutual respect and toleration possessed by liberal and decent peoples.

Rawls's views on global distributive justice as they were expressed in this work surprised many of his fellow egalitarian liberals. For example, [[Charles Beitz]] had previously written a study that argued for the application of Rawls's Difference Principles globally. Rawls denied that his principles should be so applied, partly on the grounds that a world state does not exist and would not be stable. This notion has been challenged, as a comprehensive system of global governance has arisen, amongst others in the form of the [[Bretton Woods system]], that serves to distribute primary social goods between human beings. It has thus been argued that a cosmopolitan application of the theory of justice as fairness is the more reasonable alternative to the application of The Law of Peoples, as it would be more legitimate towards all persons over whom political coercive power is exercised.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Pols |first=Paul |date=2010 |title=Applying Rawls in a Globalizing World |publisher=University of Utrecht |url=https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/5516 |access-date=June 4, 2022 |archive-date=August 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220809114119/https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/5516 |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to Rawls, however, nation states, unlike citizens, were self-sufficient in the cooperative enterprises that constitute domestic societies. Although Rawls recognized that aid should be given to governments which are unable to protect human rights for economic reasons, he claimed that the purpose for this aid is not to achieve an eventual state of global equality, but rather only to ensure that these societies could maintain liberal or decent political institutions. He argued, among other things, that continuing to give aid indefinitely would see nations with industrious populations subsidize those with idle populations and would create a [[moral hazard]] problem where governments could spend irresponsibly in the knowledge that they will be bailed out by those nations who had spent responsibly.

Rawls's discussion of "non-ideal" theory, on the other hand, included a condemnation of bombing civilians and of the American bombing of German and Japanese cities in [[World War II]], as well as discussions of immigration and nuclear proliferation. He also detailed here the ideal of the statesman, a political leader who looks to the next generation and promotes international harmony, even in the face of significant domestic pressure to act otherwise. Rawls also controversially claimed that violations of human rights can legitimize military intervention in the violating states, though he also expressed the hope that such societies could be induced to reform peacefully by the good example of liberal and decent peoples.