Hello - this is my personal web page.
New: “Empire,
ownership, and the Elgin Marbles: who should own the past?” (2023)
Balliol Society 2022 Lecture: Reparations and Historic
Injustice.
Podcast from Philosophy 24/7: Should we pay
reparations for wrongs committed in the past?
BIO
I am a political theorist at the
University of Oxford, where I am Associate Professor in Political Theory and
Director of Graduate Studies in Politics in the Department of Politics and International
Relations, and Fellow and Tutor in Political Theory) at Balliol
College. I’m co-director of the Centre
for the Study of Social Justice (CSSJ). This
is my Oxford webpage. This
is my academia.edu profile.
I started my current job in 2013, and have acted as Course Director for the M.Phil. in
Political Theory (2013-16), Tutor for Undergraduate Admissions at Balliol
(2014-16), Vice-Master (Academic) of Balliol (2016-2020), Oxford PPE Admissions
Coordinator (2017-2020), and Chair of the Sub-Faculty in Politics and
International Relations (2021-2).
From 2009 to 2013, I was Lecturer in
Political Theory at the University of Bristol. Before that, I spent five years
as Fellow and Tutor in Politics at Oriel College in Oxford, and was a
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in Social and Political Thought in the Department
of Politics and IR. I spent three years as Research Fellow and Tutor in
Politics at Keble College, Oxford, and was both a graduate and undergraduate
student at Wadham College, Oxford, where I did a D.Phil. and an M.Phil. in
Politics, and a B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and was President
of Wadham College Students’ Union. I was previously an Associate Editor, and am
now a member of the Editorial Board, of the journal Contemporary Political
Theory, and am a member of the Editorial Board of the Intergenerational
Justice Review.
In 2020 I acted as an expert witness in a High Court case between Abdul
Hakeem Muhammad and others
(Claimants) and the London Borough of Lambeth and the Commissioner of Police of
the Metropolis (Defendants), for which I wrote a report on the question, “Whether and to what extent reparations,
including the historical and ongoing effects of the transatlantic slave trade,
is an important topic for current political and social discourse and
campaigning”. The case was settled in 2021 - further details here,
here,
here,
and here,
I mostly teach contemporary political
theory. My research has included work on reparations, with particular reference
to historical injustice and international politics; colonialism and
decolonization; egalitarianism; the ethics of cultural property; environmental
ethics; judicial politics, constitutionalism, and the philosophy of law; and
vegetarianism and the ethics of parenting.
I won the Outstanding
Graduate Supervisor Award for the Social Sciences at the 2018 Oxford SU
Student Led Teaching Awards.
I once appeared on the Moral Maze on BBC
Radio 4 talking about luck and inequality: details on how to hear it are here.
I also feature in this BBC article by David Edmonds: “How do you decide when
a statue must fall?”
My email address is daniel.butt@politics.ox.ac.uk.
PUBLICATIONS
BOOK
Rectifying
International Injustice: Principles of Compensation and Restitution Between
Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). The full text
is available online here,
via Oxford
Scholarship Online. It should be accessible on most University
networks. It has been reviewed in International
Affairs 85, 5 (2009), accessible here,
Political Studies Review 8, 2 (2010),
accessible here,
Global
Justice: Theory
Practice Rhetoric 3 (2010),
accessible here,
and Ethical
Perspectives 19,1
(2012), accessible here. An abstract and a summary of each chapter
of the book are at the bottom of this page.
EDITED BOOK
(with Sarah Fine and Zofia
Stemplowska) Political
Philosophy, Here and Now: Essays in Honour of David Miller (Oxford
University Press, 2022) – available
via Oxford Academic
ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS
“Settling
claims for reparation”, Journal of Race,
Gender, and Ethnicity 11,7 (2022), 60-79 pdf
(with Zofia Stemplowska)
"No
country for strangers", in Butt, Fine, and Stemplowska, Political
Philosophy, Here and Now: Essays in Honour of David Miller (Oxford
University Press, 2022)
"Corrupting
the youth: should parents feed their children meat?", Ethical
Theory and Moral Practice 24 (2021), 981-997.
“What structural
injustice theory leaves out", Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice 24 (2021) 1161-1175.
"Judicial independence
and transformative constitutionalism: squaring the circle of
legitimacy" in D. J. Galligan (ed.), The
Courts and the People: Friend or Foe? (Hart, 2021) pdf
(with Matthew Butt) “The
mathematics of juries”, Counsel, April 2021.
“The ethical implications of benefiting from
injustice”, in Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Ethics
in Practice: An Anthology (5th edition)
(Wiley Blackwell, 2020).
“Restitution
post bellum: property, inheritance, and corrective justice”, Journal
of Applied Philosophy 36,3 (2019), 357-365 pdf
“Decolonising
universities: the second wave”, Common Ground 2
(2019), 16-19.
“Justice postcoloniale”
[Postcolonial justice], in Patrick Savidan
(ed.), Dictionnaire des inégalités et de la justice sociale (Presses
universitaires de France, 2018) (in French).
“Historical emissions: does ignorance
matter?”, in Lukas Meyer and Pranay Sanklecha (eds.), Historical
Emissions and Climate Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2017) pdf
“Law, governance and the ecological ethos”, in
Stephen Gardiner and Allen Thompson (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics (Oxford
University Press, 2016) pdf
“Microfinance, non-ideal theory, and global distributive justice”,
in Luis Cabrera and Tom Sorell (eds.) The
Ethics of Microfinance (Cambridge
University Press, 2015) pdf
“Historical justice in post-colonial contexts:
repairing historical wrongs and the end of Empire”, in Janna Thompson and Klaus
Neumann (eds.) Historical Justice and Memory (University of
Wisconsin Press, 2015)
“’A doctrine quite new and altogether untenable’:
defending the beneficiary pays principle”, Journal of
Applied Philosophy 31,4 (2014), 336-348 pdf
“Reparative justice: the debate over inherited inequities”, in
Rupert Jones-Parry and Andrew Robertson (eds.), The Commonwealth Yearbook 2014 (Cambridge:
Commonwealth Secretariat, 2014) pdf
"‘The Polluter Pays’: Backward-looking principles of
intergenerational Justice and the environment" in Jean-Christophe Merle
(ed.), Spheres of Global Justice, (Dortrecht: Springer, 2013) pdf
“Inheriting rights to reparation: compensatory
justice and the passage of time”, Ethical Perspectives 20, 2 (2013),
245-269 pdf
“Historic injustice and the inheritance of rights and duties in East Asia”, in
Jun-Hyeok Kwak and Melissa Nobles (eds.) Inherited Responsibility and Historical Reconciliation in
East Asia(Routledge, 2013) pdf
“Colonialism and postcolonialism”, in Hugh
LaFollette (ed.) The International Encyclopedia
of Ethics (Blackwell, 2013), pp. 892-8 pdf
“Repairing historical wrongs and the end of empire”, Social
& Legal Studies 21,2 (2012), 227-242 pdf
“Option luck, gambling, and fairness”, Ethical
Perspectives 19,3 (2012), 417-443 pdf
“Global equality of opportunity as an institutional standard of
distributive justice”, in Chios Carmody, Frank J. Garcia, and John Linarelli (eds.), Global Justice and International
Economic Law: Opportunities and Prospects, (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2012), pp. 44-67 pdf
(with Stuart White and Martin O’Neill) “Liberalism
and trade unionism”, International Union Rights, 18
(2012)
“배상 요구와 의무의 상속성:‘위안부’여성들의 후손에 대한 배상” (Inheriting compensatory claims and duties: reparations
to the descendants of “comfort women”), Journal of Asiatic Studies,
53 (2010), 40-70 (in Korean – translation by Sun Young Lee) pdf
“‘Victors’ justice’? Historic injustice and the
legitimacy of international law”, in Lukas H. Meyer (ed) Legitimacy,
Justice and Public International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2009), pp. 163-185 pdf
"On benefiting from injustice", Canadian Journal
of Philosophy 37 (2007),
129-152 pdf
- Reprinted in Lukas Meyer (ed.) Intergenerational Justice (Ashgate,
2012).
"Nations, overlapping generations and historic
injustice", American Philosophical Quarterly 43
(2006), 357-67 pdf
OTHER PAPERS
“Codrington and Reparations”, Paper for Conference on “Addressing
the History of Slavery: The Case of Christopher Codrington”, 8 October 2016,
All Souls College, Oxford
PODCASTS AND LECTURES
Balliol Society
2022 Lecture: Reparations
and Historic Injustice
Philosophy 24/7:
Should
we pay reparations for wrongs committed in the past?
Does
Inequality Matter? Social Justice and Political Theory (September
2016)
Reparations and the
End of Empire (November
2013)
REPORTS AND POLICY BRIEFS
The following reports were written for the
Foundation for Law, Justice and Society
in Oxford, in my previous capacity as Director of their programme
on “Courts and the Making of Public Policy”.
The
Capacity of Courts to Handle Complexity (2009)
Adjudicating
Socio-Economic Rights (2008)
Transformative
Constitutionalism and Socio-Economic Rights (2008)
In
Times of Crisis, Can We Trust the Courts? (2008)
If
the Public Would Be Outraged by their Rulings, Should Judges Care?
(2007)
The
Courts and Social Policy in the United States (2007)
Report:
Democracy, the Courts, and the Making of Public Policy (2006)
Policy
Brief: Democracy, the Courts, and the Making of Public Policy (2006)
MORE ON RECTIFYING
INTERNATIONAL INJUSTICE
Rectifying International Injustice:
Principles of Compensation and Restitution Between Nations
Daniel Butt
Book Abstract
The history of international relations is
characterized by widespread injustice. What implications does this have for
those living in the present? Should contemporary states pay reparations to the
descendants of the victims of historic wrongdoing? Many writers have dismissed
the moral urgency of rectificatory justice in a domestic context, as a result
of their forward-looking accounts of distributive justice. Rectifying
International Injustice argues that historical international injustice
raises a series of distinct theoretical problems, as a result of the popularity
of backward-looking accounts of distributive justice in an international
context. It lays out three morally relevant forms of connection with the past,
based in ideas of benefit, entitlement and responsibility. Those living in the
present may have obligations to pay compensation insofar as they are
benefiting, and others are suffering, as a result of the effects of historic
injustice. They may be in possession of property which does not rightly belong
to them, but to which others have inherited entitlements. Finally, they may be
members of political communities which bear collective responsibility for an
ongoing failure to rectify historic injustice. Rectifying International
Injustice considers each of these three linkages with the past in detail.
It examines the complicated relationship between rectificatory justice and
distributive justice, assesses the appropriateness of judging the past by
contemporary moral standards, and argues that many of those who resist
cosmopolitan demands for the global redistribution of resources have failed to
appreciate the extent to which past wrongdoing undermines the legitimacy of
contemporary resource holdings.
Book keywords: historic injustice, international
relations, reparations, compensation, distributive justice, rectificatory
justice, benefit, entitlement, property, responsibility
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter outlines the empirical
context of the debate over reparations for historic international injustice,
with particular reference to colonialism and the slave trade. It characterises the argument of the book as a specific type
of non-ideal theory, and explains the book’s
commitment to a particular kind of practicality, whereby its arguments can be
employed by real world political actors. It outlines an approach to
international justice labelled “international libertarianism”, advocated by
writers including John Rawls, David Miller, Michael Walzer
and Thomas Nagel, which is analogous to domestic libertarianism in terms of its
commitment to respect for sovereignty, self-ownership and the minimal state.
This is distinguished from alternative accounts of international justice such
as cosmopolitanism and realism. The book’s focus on rectificatory duties,
rather than rights, is explained, and the terminological relation between terms
such as restitution and compensation, and nation and state, is explicated.
Keywords: colonialism, slave trade, non-ideal
theory, practicality, Rawls, Walzer, international
libertarianism, sovereignty, self-ownership, minimal state
Chapter 2: Why Worry about Historic
Injustice?
This chapter outlines a number of critical
responses to the project of seeking to rectify historic injustice,
and explains why largely they do not apply to international libertarian
accounts of international justice. It distinguishes between backward-looking
and forward-looking accounts of distributive justice in both ideal and
non-ideal theory, and looks at how both accounts
relate to ideas of rectificatory justice. If one advocates a forward-looking
account of distributive justice, and so advocates a redistribution of resources
with each new generation, then the rectificatory project will seem to be of
little importance. However, this nonchalance in the face of historic injustice
is unsustainable if one advocates backward-looking principles. Since international
libertarians resist cosmopolitan calls for a generational redistribution of
resources across political boundaries, they must carefully scrutinize the
provenance of modern day distributions.
Keywords: historic injustice, rectification,
non-ideal theory, international justice, distributive justice,
backward-looking, forward-looking, redistribution, cosmopolitan,
generation
Chapter 3: International Libertarianism
This chapter lays out the account of
justice between nations – international libertarianism – which the book uses to
assess present day obligations arising from historic injustice. The first
section outlines international libertarianism as a backward-looking account of
international distributive justice, in contrast with forward-looking
redistributive cosmopolitanism. The second section differentiates international
libertarianism from prescriptive realism, by giving details of the principles
of just international interaction which international libertarians believe
should govern relations between different communities. These combine a respect
for national self-determination with a prohibition on self-interested
aggression. The third section considers the propriety of using these principles
to judge historic international interaction, in the light of historically
different beliefs about morality and the relatively recent development of
international law. It concludes by considering the claim that historic departures
from the principles might be seen as having been justified by necessity, and considers the duties of compensation which
would result from such actions.
Keywords: international libertarianism, distributive
justice, backward-looking, forward-looking, realism, self-determination,
aggression, international law, necessity, compensation
Chapter 4: Compensation for Historic
International Injustice
This chapter examines claims that
compensation should be paid as a result of the lasting harm and benefit caused
by historic injustice. It argues that present day parties who have benefited
from the automatic effects of past wrongdoing may possess compensatory duties
if others are still disadvantaged, insofar as the victims and beneficiaries are
not in a state of moral equilibrium. It argues that any claims relating to
compensation must make reference to some account of counterfactual reasoning in
order to assess the degree of harm which has been suffered. The question of
identifying the morally relevant counterfactual is something which has been
frequently misunderstood, particularly in relation to exploitation. Having
considered, and dismissed, objections stemming from the “non-identity problem”,
the chapter concludes by putting forward a substantive defence
of the claim that benefiting from injustice can give rise to rectificatory
duties, even when the receipt of benefit is involuntary.
Keywords: historic injustice, compensation, harm,
benefit, moral equilibrium, counterfactual, exploitation, non-identity problem,
involuntary, rectificatory
Chapter 5: Restitution and Inheritance
This chapter focuses on the claim that
present day parties have inherited entitlements to property which, owing to
historic injustice, is currently in the possession of others. Those who
advocate restitution as a response to wrongdoing argue that such property
should be returned to the heirs of the historical victims. This
inheritance-based model has often been rejected at a domestic level by
theorists who reject the justifiability of inheritance. This response, however,
is not available to international libertarians, who endorse backward-looking
accounts of distributive justice. The chapter examines Jeremy Waldron’s claim
that property rights lapse in the absence of sustained possession,
and holds that this need not be accepted if one sees international
libertarianism as based on historical entitlement. The chapter proceeds
to challenge Janna Thompson’s claim that the inheritance model is flawed as a
result of its indeterminacy, maintaining that it need not rest upon
counterfactual reasoning.
Keywords: historic injustice, restitution,
property, justifiability, inheritance, international libertarianism,
distributive justice, historical entitlement, indeterminacy,
counterfactual
Chapter 6: Nations, Overlapping
Generations, and Historic Injustice
This chapter considers the question of the
responsibility that present day generations bear as a result of the actions of
their ancestors. Is it morally significant that we share a national identity
with those responsible for the perpetration of historic injustice? The chapter
argues that we can be guilty of wrongdoing stemming from past wrongdoing if we
are members of nations that are responsible for an ongoing failure to fulfil
rectificatory duties. This rests upon three claims: that the failure to fulfil
rectificatory duties is unjust; that nations can bear collective responsibility
for the actions of their leaders; and that nations are comprised of overlapping
generations rather than successive generations. The claim that present day
parties should apologise for historic injustice is
then considered, and it is argued that such an apology is best understood in
relation to an ongoing failure to fulfil rectificatory duties.
Keywords: historic injustice, ancestors,
responsibility, nations, national identity, collective responsibility, leaders,
overlapping generations, successive generations, apology
Conclusion
The conclusion of the book reviews the
three forms of morally relevant forms of connection with historic injustice,
based on benefit, on the inheritance of entitlement, and on an ongoing failure
to fulfil rectificatory duties. These are presented as complementary but
distinct bases for modern day rectificatory duties. It is claimed that taken
together, these mean that those who advocate international libertarianism may
have to accept the existence of demanding rectificatory duties, which may, in
the short run, coincide with the demands of redistributive cosmopolitanism.
Though present day individuals and groups may dislike
the idea that they can acquire rectificatory duties in an involuntary fashion,
without bearing moral responsibility for the original wrongdoing, they
nonetheless act wrongly if they do not seek to rectify historic international
injustice.
Keywords: historic injustice, benefit,
inheritance, entitlement, international libertarianism, cosmopolitanism,
involuntary, moral responsibility, international injustice