IS JUSTICE “LOCAL”?

Recently, many American universities, some local governments, and some major corporations have taken a stand against Apartheid in South Africa by divesting themselves of investments in corporations with major holdings there. There is even a strong movement in Congress supporting economic sanctions against South Africa. Similar - or stronger - stands have been taken around the world. Millions of individuals believe that divestment is a proper action to take in opposition to a system of government which denies fundamental liberties and opportunities to the majority of its population on the basis of race.

Other campuses have taken a stand against complete divestment. Their trustees have decided to pursue selective divestment, abiding by the Sullivan Principles. The intention here is to produce selective pressure to reform Apartheid through corporations which have the economic clout to implement some reforms. Many individuals believe it is better to try to work from within and thus prefer this “hands on” tactic for promoting reform.

Notice that both sides of this tactical dispute share some moral assumptions about Apartheid, namely that it is an unjust set of practices and institutions which it is everybody's business, South African or not, to try to change. Of course, some people believe that practices in South Africa are not the proper object of concern for anyone but South Africans. More specifically, some people may believe that practices in South Africa should be judged just or unjust only by reference to principles of justice South Africans affirm.