agreement on which principles should guide that decision. It is on those grounds
that Sen presents the “indeterminacy” of his theory as a strength rather than a
weakness. The realisation-based proposal is more successful in addressing
palpable cases of injustice that demand immediate attention than the pursuit for
the “perfect” justice could ever achieve (Arjona, et. Al, 2012).
Even critics of Sen’s approach to global justice are bound to recognize
Sen’s ground-breaking contributions to the field. The capability approach
establishes an innovative connection between economics and political
philosophy which is particularly relevant to the inclusion of human rights in
studies of global development (Arrow, 1999). His understanding of poverty as a
capability deprivation – as a freedom-restricting condition – has encouraged the
inclusion of poverty into the domain of mainstream discussions about
fundamental freedoms and human rights. Sen’s reasoning supports the
development of policies and programmes that promote the achievement of such
fundamental freedoms as a “cumulative outcome”, even where they may be
immediately unattainable (Vizard, 2005). Arjona et. al (2012) point out the
further implications of Sen’s theory to legal thinking and law-making, particularly
regarding the inclusion of global perspectives. A pluralist account of justice offers
a better analysis of the growing complexity of current challenges and the legal
systems that are continuously being adapted to them. Restricting the normative
basis of international law to a single perspective prevents legal systems from
progressing (Arjona, et. Al, 2012).
There are several examples that illustrate how Sen’s contributions to
political philosophy have influenced the decision-making process of
governments, international institutions, and NGOs. In 2009, the United Nations
Climate Change Conference gathered several actors to discuss the issue, taking
note of numerous different perspectives in a manner similar to that suggested
43
Made with FlippingBook HTML5