【摘要】 由于缺乏足够的阐释和论证,兼之世界主义思潮的影响,当前西方学界对罗尔斯的国际正义理论总体上仍持批判意见。这些批判主要涉及理论旨趣、人民观、人权清单和援助责任等四项焦点问题:前三种批判揭示了罗尔斯理论的疏漏之处,但通过对其思想脉络和观点立场的同情式理解,在既有理论框架内加以翔实阐释,这些理论疏漏可以在一定程度上得到回应和辩护;围绕援助责任的争论,则集中展现了罗尔斯与世界主义者之间的观点分歧,双方在可欲性和可行性两个层面各有优劣。相比之下,容纳二者优势并有所超越的人类命运共同体理念能够为全球正义的理论探讨提供一个更为有效的支点。更多还原

【Abstract】 Due to the lack of sufficient explanation and demonstration, as well as the influence of the thought current of cosmopolitanism, the current Western scholarly circles still helds critical opinions on Rawls’ s theory of international justice on the whole. These criticisms mainly involve four focal issues, namely the theoretical purport, the view of the people, the list of human rights, and the duty of assistance. Among them, the first three kinds of criticism reveal what is omitted and neglected carelessly in Rawls’ s theory, but through the sympathetic understanding of Rawls’ s ideological context and standpoint, and the detailed explanation within the existing theoretical framework, these theoretical omissions and neglections can be responded and defended to a certain extent; on the other hand, the debate about the duty of assistance focuses on the difference between Rawls and cosmopolitans, each side of whom has merits and demerits in desirability and feasibility. By contrast, the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind that accommodates and transcends the advantages of the two sides can provide a more effective supporting point for the theoretical discussion of global justice.更多还原