Gwilym David Blunt
Gwilym David Blunt is a Lecturer in International Relations at City, University of London. Author authorised versions of articles can be found at: https://www.gdblunt.com
Previously he was a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Department of POLIS, University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Corpus Christi College. Before joining the department he was a doctoral candidate at University College London, where he completed his thesis: Transnational Philanthropy, Justice, and Domination.
Research Interests:
His research interests involve contemporary political philosophy and the history of political thought.
Contemporary Political Philosophy:
David's interest in contemporary political philosophy is focussed on transnational socioeconomic justice as well as conceptions of power and domination. He is also interested in the relationship between ideal theory models and guidance in non-ideal circumstances, with special attention paid to the justifiability of political violence.
The History of Political Thought:
David also works on the history of republican and Marxist political thought. Regarding republicanism, he is interested in the shifting contextual understanding of domination from classical era through to the nineteenth century, but with special interest in the early modern period. As for Marxism, he interested in the development of Marxist theory and its influence on the culture in pre-revolutionary communist parties and the self-understanding of revolutionaries.
Previously he was a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Department of POLIS, University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Corpus Christi College. Before joining the department he was a doctoral candidate at University College London, where he completed his thesis: Transnational Philanthropy, Justice, and Domination.
Research Interests:
His research interests involve contemporary political philosophy and the history of political thought.
Contemporary Political Philosophy:
David's interest in contemporary political philosophy is focussed on transnational socioeconomic justice as well as conceptions of power and domination. He is also interested in the relationship between ideal theory models and guidance in non-ideal circumstances, with special attention paid to the justifiability of political violence.
The History of Political Thought:
David also works on the history of republican and Marxist political thought. Regarding republicanism, he is interested in the shifting contextual understanding of domination from classical era through to the nineteenth century, but with special interest in the early modern period. As for Marxism, he interested in the development of Marxist theory and its influence on the culture in pre-revolutionary communist parties and the self-understanding of revolutionaries.
less
InterestsView All (62)
Uploads
I thought some of you may be interested.
It’s big chapter but the argument can be broken down as follows:
1. Human rights need a right of resistance in order to be ‘rights’ in a meaningful sense. If rights do not have remedies, they are nothing more than rhetoric. Resistance is the ultimate remedy.
2. This right is not overtly recognised in many jurisdictions, but it remains nascent in international law and organisations, in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various declarations of the UN.
3. The content of this right is difficult to determine but looking at the practice of resistance can help us understand some of the ways that it can be acted on. The test cases focus on resistance to slavery: The Haitian Revolution, Fugitive Slaves, and day-to-day resistance.
PS. Share as widely as possible while it's free.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-poverty-injustice-and-resistance/right-to-resistance/4E3EE8645E1DBD50B29B9B36DBD88CCB
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-poverty-injustice-and-resistance/958740B0AE0BBE8E63B96F182318B28E
Author's Accepted versions can be viewed at: https://www.gdblunt.com/publications
This article defends illegal immigration from the Global South to the Global North, while being agnostic about the right of the state to control borders. This argument is based on two premises: a) cosmopolitan accounts of global distributive justice and b) the human right to resistance. Given that global poverty is an avoidable and intransigent violation of human rights, resistance is justifiable. Illegal immigration is a form of “infra political” resistance that is comparable to fugitive slaves. Like these slaves, people living in extreme poverty experience a durable form of domination in which escape is possible, even though it is highly risky. If one thinks that the fugitive slave did nothing wrong, then one cannot condemn the illegal immigrant.
This article is premised on the idea that global poverty is the foreseeable and avoidable by-product of the international system. This position is held by many cosmopolitans, but rarely do they deal with the consequences of this claim. This paper will examine the idea of a right to resistance in the face of global poverty. It will argue that a right to resistance is a necessary component of the political conception of human rights. It will also be argued that it is latent in some major documents and declarations to the point that it can be considered an emerging practice.
The rest of the article can be found by following the link: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/676705
Pogge has repeatedly compared the causes of global poverty with historical crimes against humanity. This claim, however, has been treated as mere rhetoric. This article argues that there are good reasons to take it seriously. It does this by comparing
Pogge’s thesis on the causes of global poverty with the baseline definition of crimes against humanity found in international law, especially the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It argues that the causes of global poverty are comparable with the crimes of slavery and apartheid. This has important consequences for cosmopolitan thought, as it makes the need for practical solutions to global poverty more urgent and raises questions about the global poor’s right to resist the international system by violent means.
This article begins with an examination of Peter Singer’s ‘solution’ to global poverty as a way to develop a theory of ‘justice in assistance.’ It argues that Singer’s work, while compelling, does not seriously engage with the institutions necessary to relieve global poverty. In order to realise our obligations it is necessary to employ secondary agents, such as non- governmental organisations, that produce complex social relationships with the global poor. We should be concerned that the affluent and their secondary agents are complicit with unjust institutions or can be the source of injustice. What is needed is a theory of justice in assistance. This is a distinct area of justice theory because these agents are not primary agents, like states, but they often provide the basic social goods that we associate with primary agents. The article ends by putting forward a provisional conception of justice in assistance based on the republican idea of non-domination.
This article seeks to examine how domination manifests in social relationships and institutions. It does this by examining two debates in republican literature. The first of which is whether domination requires institutionalisation? This addresses the source of domination. The second debate is on the nature of arbitrary power. This raises questions about the site of domination. It will be argued that the source of domination can be personally or socially constituted and that the site can be interactional or systemic. This yields four modes of domination that can be used to examine social institutions and relationships.
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpow21/current/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1010800
This article assesses Thomas Pogge's recent argument that it is sometimes justifiable to harm innocent persons in light of his claims about the causes of global poverty. It argues that if Pogge's two theses are correct then a third thesis follows: that those immiserated by the international system can legitimately resist the institutions responsible for the systemic violations of human rights, even at the cost of grievously harming innocent persons. This article does not assess the validity of Pogge's theses, but draws attention to a neglected topic in the debate on transnational economic justice: the right of resistance.
Read the full essay: https://theconversation.com/why-leaders-breaking-rules-is-a-far-more-serious-attack-on-our-liberty-than-lockdown-itself-139405
I thought some of you may be interested.
It’s big chapter but the argument can be broken down as follows:
1. Human rights need a right of resistance in order to be ‘rights’ in a meaningful sense. If rights do not have remedies, they are nothing more than rhetoric. Resistance is the ultimate remedy.
2. This right is not overtly recognised in many jurisdictions, but it remains nascent in international law and organisations, in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various declarations of the UN.
3. The content of this right is difficult to determine but looking at the practice of resistance can help us understand some of the ways that it can be acted on. The test cases focus on resistance to slavery: The Haitian Revolution, Fugitive Slaves, and day-to-day resistance.
PS. Share as widely as possible while it's free.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-poverty-injustice-and-resistance/right-to-resistance/4E3EE8645E1DBD50B29B9B36DBD88CCB
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-poverty-injustice-and-resistance/958740B0AE0BBE8E63B96F182318B28E
Author's Accepted versions can be viewed at: https://www.gdblunt.com/publications
This article defends illegal immigration from the Global South to the Global North, while being agnostic about the right of the state to control borders. This argument is based on two premises: a) cosmopolitan accounts of global distributive justice and b) the human right to resistance. Given that global poverty is an avoidable and intransigent violation of human rights, resistance is justifiable. Illegal immigration is a form of “infra political” resistance that is comparable to fugitive slaves. Like these slaves, people living in extreme poverty experience a durable form of domination in which escape is possible, even though it is highly risky. If one thinks that the fugitive slave did nothing wrong, then one cannot condemn the illegal immigrant.
This article is premised on the idea that global poverty is the foreseeable and avoidable by-product of the international system. This position is held by many cosmopolitans, but rarely do they deal with the consequences of this claim. This paper will examine the idea of a right to resistance in the face of global poverty. It will argue that a right to resistance is a necessary component of the political conception of human rights. It will also be argued that it is latent in some major documents and declarations to the point that it can be considered an emerging practice.
The rest of the article can be found by following the link: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/676705
Pogge has repeatedly compared the causes of global poverty with historical crimes against humanity. This claim, however, has been treated as mere rhetoric. This article argues that there are good reasons to take it seriously. It does this by comparing
Pogge’s thesis on the causes of global poverty with the baseline definition of crimes against humanity found in international law, especially the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It argues that the causes of global poverty are comparable with the crimes of slavery and apartheid. This has important consequences for cosmopolitan thought, as it makes the need for practical solutions to global poverty more urgent and raises questions about the global poor’s right to resist the international system by violent means.
This article begins with an examination of Peter Singer’s ‘solution’ to global poverty as a way to develop a theory of ‘justice in assistance.’ It argues that Singer’s work, while compelling, does not seriously engage with the institutions necessary to relieve global poverty. In order to realise our obligations it is necessary to employ secondary agents, such as non- governmental organisations, that produce complex social relationships with the global poor. We should be concerned that the affluent and their secondary agents are complicit with unjust institutions or can be the source of injustice. What is needed is a theory of justice in assistance. This is a distinct area of justice theory because these agents are not primary agents, like states, but they often provide the basic social goods that we associate with primary agents. The article ends by putting forward a provisional conception of justice in assistance based on the republican idea of non-domination.
This article seeks to examine how domination manifests in social relationships and institutions. It does this by examining two debates in republican literature. The first of which is whether domination requires institutionalisation? This addresses the source of domination. The second debate is on the nature of arbitrary power. This raises questions about the site of domination. It will be argued that the source of domination can be personally or socially constituted and that the site can be interactional or systemic. This yields four modes of domination that can be used to examine social institutions and relationships.
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rpow21/current/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1010800
This article assesses Thomas Pogge's recent argument that it is sometimes justifiable to harm innocent persons in light of his claims about the causes of global poverty. It argues that if Pogge's two theses are correct then a third thesis follows: that those immiserated by the international system can legitimately resist the institutions responsible for the systemic violations of human rights, even at the cost of grievously harming innocent persons. This article does not assess the validity of Pogge's theses, but draws attention to a neglected topic in the debate on transnational economic justice: the right of resistance.
Read the full essay: https://theconversation.com/why-leaders-breaking-rules-is-a-far-more-serious-attack-on-our-liberty-than-lockdown-itself-139405