"The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" By John Rawls
0John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited represents the philosopher’s attempt to extend his theory of justice from the domestic realm to the international sphere. In this work, Rawls seeks to define a stable and morally justifiable framework for the interaction of peoples, rather than individuals, by relying on the notion of "reasonable" societies. These societies are not necessarily liberal in the Western democratic sense, but they are minimally decent, respecting human rights and guided by a common good conception of justice. Rawls deliberately avoids imposing a singular global justice ideal, instead emphasizing the legitimacy of diverse political cultures that meet this standard of reasonableness.
Rawls’s vision diverges sharply from traditional cosmopolitan theories that treat individuals as the basic units of moral concern in global justice. Rather than advocating for a universal distributive justice akin to his domestic Theory of Justice, he affirms the integrity of political communities and their right to self-determination. In his conception, a well-ordered society is one governed by a shared public political culture and organized around principles its members can accept. On the global stage, Rawls proposes a "society of peoples" who adhere to a limited set of principles such as non-aggression, respect for sovereignty, human rights, and assistance to burdened societies.
The law of peoples is guided by a form of political liberalism that seeks to be freestanding and justified by overlapping consensus rather than metaphysical or comprehensive doctrines. This grounding allows Rawls to propose a realistic utopia: a global order that, though idealized, could be accepted by rational actors in conditions of moderate scarcity and pluralism. It is in this context that Rawls revisits the concept of public reason, extending it to international relations. He argues that liberal peoples must justify their foreign policies in ways that other reasonable peoples can endorse, using arguments that do not rely on any single controversial moral or religious doctrine.
By distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable societies, Rawls attempts to reconcile pluralism with a normative international order. However, this distinction has generated critique, particularly regarding its implications for societies that fall short of Rawls’s standards. Critics have argued that Rawls’s tolerance for “decent hierarchical societies” risks condoning regimes that do not fully respect individual liberty or equality. Others contend that Rawls’s framework underestimates global interdependence and the extent to which injustices within and between nations are shaped by transnational economic structures. These critiques challenge whether Rawls’s restraint in extending distributive justice beyond borders truly reflects the demands of moral consistency.
Nevertheless, Rawls’s defense of pluralism and his insistence on the autonomy of political cultures reflect a deep concern with stability and legitimacy in a diverse world. His approach suggests that an effective and just international order does not require uniform liberalism, but rather a common commitment to certain baseline norms. The inclusion of the essay “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited” underscores this point. In it, Rawls clarifies that public reason pertains to the reasons citizens and states offer when advocating political principles that bind others. By requiring public justification in terms all can reasonably accept, Rawls strengthens the legitimacy of political decisions in both domestic and international contexts.
The Law of Peoples with The Idea of Public Reason Revisited ultimately reflects Rawls’s ambition to design a framework of moral and political reasoning capable of accommodating the realities of global diversity while maintaining fidelity to liberal principles. His cautious optimism about international cooperation is anchored in the belief that peoples, like citizens, can be guided by a sense of justice and a willingness to act reasonably. The work stands as a significant, though contested, contribution to contemporary political theory, engaging deeply with the question of how to forge a just and stable peace among diverse societies without erasing the moral particularities that define them.