Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations
of Human Rights and ILO conventions, is a function of their good will. They are outside the bounds of national laws, practically speaking, and at the global level are subject only to the rules of behaviour they establish themselves. The United Nations has been compelled to assume a rather unusual position with regard to international corporations, as evidenced by the language used in the Millennium Development Goals; "cooperation" is sought with these large companies and conglomerates as if they were public entities with attributes of sovereignty. Nonetheless, this emerging dialogue between the diplomatic culture and the corporate culture within the United Nations context is a positive development; perhaps it will encourage deeper reflection on the very notions of "public" and "private" sectors. The public sector can no longer pretend that it has the exclusive right to define and protect the public interest or the common good. The private sector can no longer pretend that it has a monopoly on freedom, creativity and efficiency. Justice, including social justice, can no longer be the sole responsibility of public institutions; it requires the active involvement of all segments of society. Problems deriving from contemporary trends and public policies have been amply evoked in this work summarizing and interpreting the debates of the International Forum for Social Development. Rather than reiterating them here, it seems more appropriate to identify the domains, additional or complementary to those listed above, in which the United Nations might consider engaging in deeper reflection and expanded debate. Universalism, in its secular sense, needs to be revisited and openly debated. This notion, central to the normative role of the Organization, has been battered by a number of currents including moral and cultural relativism and, at the other extreme, unilateralism. Respect for pluralism, so critical for preserving and enhancing the richness of the world, must be harmonized with respect for universal principles and norms. If there is a plurality of conceptions of justice, the identification of universal rights, freedoms and duties is all the more necessary, and it becomes all the more important to allow broad participation in the forums and processes through which this determination ought to be made. The question of the foundations of the concept and conceptions of justice, in particular distributive or social justice, is a difficult one but should not be avoided or left to moral philosophers. The various religious and philosophical origins and interpretations of this fundamental notion could be usefully expounded and debated within the framework of the United Nations. There are roughly four different foundations for justice: divine and revealed law; positivism (what is legal is what is just); the idea of the social contract; and the application of the principle of utility, or utilitarianism. Rawls, in the tradition of Kant, builds his reasoning on the rlotion of a social contract. Utilitarianism was adopted two centuries ago by