| 000 | 02413nam a22002417a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | ZW-GwMSU | ||
| 005 | 20221110112907.0 | ||
| 008 | 221110b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aMSU _cMSU _erda |
||
| 100 |
_a Fernández , Luis Tomás Montilla _eauthor |
||
| 245 |
_aJohn Rawls’s Theory of Justice and Large-Scale Land Acquisitions: A Law and Economics Analysis of Institutional Background Justice in Sub-Saharan Africa _ccreated by Luis Tomás Montilla Fernández & Johannes Schwarze |
||
| 264 |
_aGermany _bSpringerlink _c2013 |
||
| 336 |
_2rdacontent _atext _btxt |
||
| 337 |
_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn |
||
| 338 |
_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc |
||
| 440 | _vVolume , number , | ||
| 520 | _aDuring the 2007–2008 global food crisis, the prices of primary foods, in particular, peaked. Subsequently, governments concerned about food security and investors keen to capitalize on profit-maximizing opportunities undertook large-scale land acquisitions (LASLA) in, predominantly, least developed countries (LDCs). Economically speaking, this market reaction is highly welcome, as it should (1) improve food security and lower prices through more efficient food production while (2) host countries benefit from development opportunities. However, our assessment of the debate on the issues indicates critical voices in both the media and academic discourse. This article aims to provide a philosophical law and economics analysis. We draw on John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, focusing on Rawls’s background institutions for distributive justice (§43) to evaluate LASLA form an ethical angle. Approaching LASLA into Sub Saharan LDCs as a socio-economic reform redistributing land from the local population of LDCs to investors, we acknowledge that they bear a highly desirable potential. Often, though, they cannot be regarded as ethically correct in practice as the insignificant improvements for local populations and sometimes even human rights violations contradict Rawls’s principles of justice. Then investigating whether and how international law can help overcome the shortcomings, we conclude that even though respective mechanisms exist in the current state of international law, it is hardly possible that it will produce more just outcomes in the near future. | ||
| 650 | _aland grabbing | ||
| 650 | _aInvestment | ||
| 650 | _aJohn Rawls | ||
| 650 | _aJustice | ||
| 942 |
_2lcc _cJA |
||
| 999 |
_c160303 _d160303 |
||