Gwilym David Blunt
Gwilym David Blunt
Political Theory and International Relations
 

Publications

 
 

Books

 
Screenshot%2525252B2019-07-09%2525252Bat%2525252B08.24.15%2525252Bcopy.jpg
 
 
 

Each year millions of people die from poverty-related causes. The depth of this tragedy is only matched by the indifference of the wealthy. The only people who will end this injustice are its victims.

The right to resistance is a fundamental human right, without it the idea of human rights is meaningless. Global poverty is comparable to a crime against humanity and just as resistance to slavery and Nazism was justified, so is resistance to global poverty.

The right of resistance is used to reframe urgent political questions: is illegal immigration a form of resistance? Can transnational social movements, such as the indigenous rights movement, provide the foundations for civil resistance to global poverty? If peaceful resistance fails, is armed struggle justified? Do people living in affluent states have a responsibility to help even if it requires them to break the law?

Cambridge University Press, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647472

 
 

Articles

 
 

A Mirror for Tech-Bros? Effective Altruism, Longtermism, and the Problem of Arbitrary Power

Impact is a word that gets bandied around a lot in academia. It is the metric by which success is measured and managers appeased, but for anyone working in philosophy it can appear almost impossible for one’s work to reach outside of the small network of professional academics and passionate students. Philosophy seems trapped in the ivory tower. That is what makes William MacAskill exceptional. His work as a philosopher has had a real impact outside of academia, not once but twice.

Things may have turned out differently if a copy of Philip Pettit’s Republicanism was sitting on their bookshelves beside Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save to caution effective altruism and longtermism about the hazards of power beyond questions of mere efficiency. But they didn’t andthings went wrong.

 

Beyond Liberty: A Republican Perspective on COVID-19 Restrictions and the Politics of Freedom

It is a trite observation to say that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way billions of people live their daily lives. There has been an escalation of government interference in the mundane experiences of day-to-day existence. This has included limitations on travel, mask mandates and social distancing, and, of course, ‘lockdowns’. These restrictions have been criticized for the economic harm they have caused, but perhaps the more salient objection, at least for a political philosopher, is the claim that COVID-19 restrictions undermine personal liberty, freedom and individual autonomy. This seems to be the public rallying cry for many of those opposed to the restrictions, including public figures like Lord Sumption. There is a glimmer of truth in this claim, but the problem is misrepresented. The real issue is not with COVID-19 restrictions in themselves but that they are arbitrarily formulated and liable to partial enforcement. This reveals that the problem is not just one of liberty but of equality. This chapter examines and revises the liberty objection within the theory of libertarianism to make it more attuned to the problem of arbitrary power and inequality

The Gates Foundation, Global Health, and Domination: A Republican Critique of Transnational Philanthropy

The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a revival of interest in the role of philanthropy in the international system, especially in the fields of global poverty and health. Yet, despite an emergent critical literature in development studies and international studies, philanthropy has barely featured in the debate on global distributive justice. This article uses the republican conception of domination as an analytical framework to precisely articulate concerns of justice raised by transnational philanthropy. Using the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its role in global health as a test case, it argues that transnational philanthropy is characterized by an asymmetric distribution of power, which is sufficient to produce dependence, and that is uncontrolled insofar as its use either rests on the will of powerful agents or on terms of social cooperation beyond contestation. This arbitrary character is particularly relevant to philanthropy because of its use of epistemic power to produce and legitimize knowledge. In short, transnational philanthropy is dominating. If individuals have the right to exercise control over the social institutions that profoundly affect their basic interests, then philanthropy has a problem of justice that cannot be dismissed.

 
sppol_38_3_coverfig.jpg

The Case for Epistocratic Republicanism

In recent years, the fortunes of democracy have waned both in theory and practice. This has added impetus not only to the republican case for strengthening democratic institutions but also to new anti-democratic thought. This article examines the claim made by Jason Brennan that epistocracy, rule by the ‘knowledgeable’, is compatible with freedom from domination. The case against epistocratic republicanism is grounded in concerns about systemic domination and the ability of epistocrats to arbitrarily set the terms of social cooperation. It concludes that republicans ought to be democrats.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395719889563

27246100815990L-2.jpg

Illegal Immigration as Resistance

This article asks how cosmopolitans should assess the actions of illegal immigrants. It argues that immigrants who suffer from severe poverty do, indeed, have a right to enter Global North, even if they are not legally permitted to do so. This argument is not derived from a right to freedom of movement that other cosmopolitans have advocated. Instead, this is an instance of people enacting their right to resistance by escaping to the North; it is comparable to fugitive slaves in the Antebellum United States. Both cases are examples of infrapolitical resistance by severely dominated agents.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.069.0083

Is There a Human Right to Resistance?

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.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2017.0052

 
Screenshot 2019-07-15 at 08.12.33.png

Is Global Poverty a Crime Against Humanity?

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.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971915000123

rjge20.v015.i01.jpg

JUSTICE IN ASSISTANCE: A CRITIQUE OF THE SINGER SOLUTION

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.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2015.1055780

 
sppol_38_3_coverfig.jpg

TRANSNATIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01396.x

rpow21.v012.i02.jpg

ON THE SOURCE, SITE AND MODE OF 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.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1010800

 

Reviews

 
showCoverImage.png

Freedom without Violence: Resisting the Western Political Tradition

by Dustin Ells Howes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016

showCoverImage.png

Radicals, REvolutionaries and Terrorists

by Colin J Beck. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015.

 
psr.2015.13.issue-4.cover.jpg

Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership

by Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

ccam20.v032.i03.jpg

Blame it on the WTO? A Human Rights Critique

by Sarah Joseph. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

 
psr.2015.13.issue-4.cover.jpg

THEORIZING POWER

by Jonathan Hearn. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

opticonlogo_0.jpg

POLITICS AS USUAL: WHAT LIES BEHIND PRO-POOR RHETORIC

by Thomas Pogge. Cambridge: Polity, 2010

 

 Commentary

 
 

The Terrible Ethics of Nuclear Weapons

“I have blood on my hands.” This is what Robert Oppenheimer, the mastermind behind the Manhattan Project, told US President Harry Truman after the bombs he created were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over an estimated 226,000 people.

“I have blood on my hands.” This is what Robert Oppenheimer, the mastermind behind the Manhattan Project, told US President Harry Truman after the bombs he created were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over an estimated 226,000 people.

The President reassured him, but in private was incensed by the ‘cry-baby scientist’ for his guilty conscience and told Dean Acheson, his Secretary of State, “I don’t want to see that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”

With the anniversary of the bombings this week while Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer is in cinemas, it is a good moment to reflect on the two people most responsible for the creation and use of nuclear weapons: one wracked with guilt, the other with a clean conscience.

Who is right?

 

The Cost of Curiosity: On the Ethics of Innovation

Underpinning the rise of this breed of billionaire is the notion that there is something special about the ultra-wealthy. That in ‘winning’ capitalism they have demonstrated not merely business acumen, but a genius that applies to the human condition more broadly. This ‘epistemic privilege’ casts them as innovators whose curiosity will bring benefits to the rest of us and the best thing that we normal people can do is watch on from a distance. This attitude is embodied in the ‘Silicon Valley Libertarianism’ which seeks to liberate technology from the shackles imposed on it by small-minded mediocrities such as regulation. This new breed seeks great power without much interest in checks on the corresponding responsibility.

Is this OK?

Billionaire philanthropy and the problem of domination: The curious case of Elon Musk

On 4 October 2022, Elon Musk waded into the Russo-Ukrainian war by posting a “peace plan” on Twitter. He suggested a “redo” of the referendums in the recently annexed territories in Eastern Ukraine; recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea; guaranteed water supplies in Crimea; and Ukrainian neutrality. This intervention sparked something of a furore on the social media platform and was rebuffed in no uncertain terms by the Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba — though it was warmly welcomed by the Kremlin.

It is reasonable to say that Musk’s foray into world politics did not go as he would have liked. Many questioned his legitimacy and authority to wade into the war: with regard to legitimacy, he is not an expert on diplomacy or international affairs; and with regard to authority, he doesn’t speak for anyone but himself. On what grounds should he intervene in the crisis? What does he know and for whom does he speak?

 
Screenshot 2021-01-06 at 07.20.57.png

Once Donald Trump is out of the White House, Americans should write him out of History Too

It seems inevitable that he will go, but then America will be forced to deal with the question: what to do with former President Trump?

Trump’s refusal to concede, the intimidation of governors, senators and other public officials, and his flirtation with sedition makes denying Trump the usual honours an appropriate punishment. It doesn’t mean he ought to be consigned to some Orwellian memory hole. He should still appear in textbooks and histories, but all the public commemoration that former presidents receive through custom should not be granted to him.

Screenshot+2020-08-19+at+07.09.14.jpg

Face Mask Rules: Do They Really Violate Personal Liberty?

Reprint: Setting aside the conspiracy theories and disinformation that seem to prevade these protests, the participants are joined by a fierce attachment to individual liberty. They believe mask mandates sacrifice individual liberty to a collectivist notion a ‘greater good’.

But if this is correct it is unclear why wearing a mask is so troubling given the widespread ‘interference’ in our other choices. Surely, the requirement that you have to cover any part of your body is a far graver violation of individual liberty than being compelled to wear a small face covering during a pandemic? It may be that the anti-mask movement is the spear tip of a global militant nudism trend, but that doesn’t seem particularly plausible (or desirable).

 
Screenshot+2020-08-19+at+07.22.51.jpg

Face Mask Rules: Do They Really Violate Personal Liberty?

Reprint: Setting aside the conspiracy theories and disinformation that seem to prevade these protests, the participants are joined by a fierce attachment to individual liberty. They believe mask mandates sacrifice individual liberty to a collectivist notion a ‘greater good’.

But if this is correct it is unclear why wearing a mask is so troubling given the widespread ‘interference’ in our other choices. Surely, the requirement that you have to cover any part of your body is a far graver violation of individual liberty than being compelled to wear a small face covering during a pandemic? It may be that the anti-mask movement is the spear tip of a global militant nudism trend, but that doesn’t seem particularly plausible (or desirable).

Screenshot+2020-07-31+at+16.00.00.jpg

Face Mask Rules: Do They Really Violate Personal Liberty?

Setting aside the conspiracy theories and disinformation that seem to prevade these protests, the participants are joined by a fierce attachment to individual liberty. They believe mask mandates sacrifice individual liberty to a collectivist notion a ‘greater good’.

But if this is correct it is unclear why wearing a mask is so troubling given the widespread ‘interference’ in our other choices. Surely, the requirement that you have to cover any part of your body is a far graver violation of individual liberty than being compelled to wear a small face covering during a pandemic? It may be that the anti-mask movement is the spear tip of a global militant nudism trend, but that doesn’t seem particularly plausible (or desirable).

 
Screenshot+2020-08-19+at+07.38.05.jpg

Resistance in the Time of Coronavirus

“I can’t breathe” is the phrase that will define 2020. It captures the fear of the coronavirus that attacks the respiratory system of those who contract it and they were the last words of George Floyd before he died with a police officer’s knee on his neck. They capture the sentiments that drove millions to isolate themselves and are the words that pulled hundreds of thousands into the streets to protest systemic racism. 

This has led some to criticise those engaging in mass protests as failing in their duty to remain in lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This line of argument fails to appreciate that acts of resistance often carry risk and downplays the injustice of systemic racism.

Screenshot+2020-05-27+at+07.16.25.jpg

Why leaders breaking rules is a far more serious attack on our liberty than lockdown itself

Protestors who have called lockdown policies “tyranny” are operating under a reductive understanding of liberty. The state is preventing them from doing something and therefore their liberty is being violated. But they are wrong, so long as lockdown policies are publicly known, impartially enforced, and democratically constrained. 

The genuine threat to liberty exposed by the coronavirus pandemic is that some of those who hold power believe that they ought to be above the law, above scrutiny, and above accountability. The actions of Trump, Johnson and Cummings may delight their base, but their supporters should bear in mind that a favoured slave is no less a slave.

 
Screenshot+2020-05-07+at+09.40.30.jpg

Coronavirus: why we should be sceptical about the benevolence of billionaires

Reprint: The coronavirus pandemic has produced a surge in philanthropic giving from some of the world’s wealthiest people. Bill and Melinda Gates, longstanding champions of global health, have committed funds to research the disease and manufacture a vaccine when one becomes available. Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, has pledged US$1 billion (£816 million) for “global COVID-19 relief”. Then there are Jack Ma, Li Ka-Shing, George Soros, Giorgio Armani and Jeff Bezos – other examples of billionaires giving staggering amounts of money to help alleviate the suffering caused by this global crisis. It is not surprising that they have enjoyed widespread praise and acclaim. 

Indeed, it is well deserved. But the situation also illustrates a profound imbalance in society.

Screenshot+2020-04-22+at+09.01.23.jpg

Coronavirus: why we should be sceptical about the benevolence of billionaires

Reprint: The coronavirus pandemic has produced a surge in philanthropic giving from some of the world’s wealthiest people. Bill and Melinda Gates, longstanding champions of global health, have committed funds to research the disease and manufacture a vaccine when one becomes available. Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, has pledged US$1 billion (£816 million) for “global COVID-19 relief”. Then there are Jack Ma, Li Ka-Shing, George Soros, Giorgio Armani and Jeff Bezos – other examples of billionaires giving staggering amounts of money to help alleviate the suffering caused by this global crisis. It is not surprising that they have enjoyed widespread praise and acclaim. 

Indeed, it is well deserved. But the situation also illustrates a profound imbalance in society.

 
Screenshot+2020-04-20+at+18.09.30.jpg

Coronavirus: why we should be sceptical about the benevolence of billionaires

The coronavirus pandemic has produced a surge in philanthropic giving from some of the world’s wealthiest people. Bill and Melinda Gates, longstanding champions of global health, have committed funds to research the disease and manufacture a vaccine when one becomes available. Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, has pledged US$1 billion (£816 million) for “global COVID-19 relief”. Then there are Jack Ma, Li Ka-Shing, George Soros, Giorgio Armani and Jeff Bezos – other examples of billionaires giving staggering amounts of money to help alleviate the suffering caused by this global crisis. It is not surprising that they have enjoyed widespread praise and acclaim. 

Indeed, it is well deserved. But the situation also illustrates a profound imbalance in society.

Screenshot+2020-04-15+at+13.34.32.jpg

The Week: Sometimes the most powerful act of resistance is to do nothing

Reprint: Resistance is a human right. If your rights are violated, you must have a recourse. Normally this would be found in the law and the courts but, when faced with severe and intransigent injustice, resistance is that recourse. But when others are resisting, and we are sympathetic to their aims, what should we do? The answer is surprising.

 
Screenshot%2B2020-03-30%2Bat%2B13.50.44.jpg

Sometimes the most powerful act of resistance is to do nothing

Resistance is a human right. If your rights are violated, you must have a recourse. Normally this would be found in the law and the courts but, when faced with severe and intransigent injustice, resistance is that recourse. But when others are resisting, and we are sympathetic to their aims, what should we do? The answer is surprising.

EQktEyXW4AAOmwb.jpg

The Case for Illegal Immigration

The illegal immigrant is one of the favourite hobgoblins of the alt-right mind and it has salience with many otherwise sensible people. The idea of the queue-jumper offends many people’s sense of ‘fair play’, but if fair play is the concern then one has to seriously ask: is the current way in which the world is structured ‘fair’?