Greening Global Egalitarianism?




In Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory (2017), Chris Armstrong proposes a version of global egalitarianism that – contra the default renderings of this approach – takes individual attachment to specific resources into account. By doing this, his theory has the potential for greening global egalitarianism both in terms of procedure and scope. In terms of procedure, its broad account of attachment and its focus on individuals rather than groups connects with participatory governance and management and, ultimately, participatory democracy – an essential ingredient in the toolkit of green politics and policy-making. In terms of scope, because it does not commit itself to any particular moral framework, Armstrong’s theory leaves the door open for non-human animals to become subjects of justice, thus extending the realm of the latter beyond its traditionally anthropocentric borders. I conclude that these greenings are promising, but not trouble-free.


Chris Armstrong, Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).

Steve Cooke, ‘Animal Kingdoms: On Habitat Rights for Wild Animals’, Environmental Values 26/1 (2017), 53–72.

Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Alfonso Donoso, ‘Representing Non-Human Interests’, Environmental Values 26/5 (2017), 607–28.

William Godfrey-Smith, ‘The Value of Wilderness’, Environmental Ethics 1/4 (1979), p. 311.

Global Greens, ‘Charter of the Global Greens’ (2012), <> (Accessed: May 11, 2018).

John Hadley, Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals (London: Lexington Books, 2015).

Oscar Horta, ‘Zoopolis, Interventions and the State of Nature’, Law, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2013), 113–25.

Avery Kolers, Land, Conflict and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

Alejandra Mancilla, ‘Shared Sovereignty over Migratory Natural Resources’, Res Publica 22/1 (2016), 21–35.

Tamar Meisels, Territorial Rights, second edition (Dordrecht: Springer Law and Philosophy Library, 2009).

Branko Milanovic, The Haves and the Have Nots (New York: Basic Books, 2011), pp. 120–123.

David Miller, ‘Territorial Rights: Concept and Justification’, Political Studies 60/2 (2012), 252–268.

David Miller, ‘National Responsibility and Global Justice’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11/4 (2008), 383–99.

Monarch Butterfly Fund, ‘Mission & Vision’, <> (Accessed May 11, 2018.)

Margaret Moore, A Political Theory of Territory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).

Cara Nine, Global Justice and Territory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

Mark S. Reed, ‘Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review’, Biological Conservation 141 (2008), 2417–31.

Angie Pepper, ‘Beyond Anthropocentrism: Cosmopolitanism and Nonhuman Animals,’ Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 9/2 (2016).

Mark Rowlands, ‘Contractarianism and Animal Rights’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 14/3 (1997), 235–47.

Hillel Steiner, ‘Territorial Justice and Global Redistribution’ in The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Susanne Stoll-Kleemann and Martin Welp, ‘Participatory and Integrated Management of Biosphere Reserves’, GAIA 17/1 (2008), 161–68, p. 162.

Christopher Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’, Southern California Law Review 45/450 (1972), 450–501.

Chris D. Thomas, Inheritors of the Earth: How Nature Is Thriving in an Age of Extinction (London: Hachette UK, 2017).

Kerry E. Vachta, ‘Participatory Democracy’, in Dustin Mulvaney and Paul Robbins (eds.), Green Politics: An A to Z Guide, (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2011).