The paper focuses on the role of justice claims for global governance. It connects to debates on Ethics in International Relations (cosmopolitanism/communitarianism) as well as on global justice in International Political Theory (IPT) and International Relations (IR). The paper seeks to contrast these normative debates with empirical case study analyses. It asks whether and how differences in justice claims of states relate to norm conflicts. The paper also aims to show that conflicting justice convictions of states can become considerable stumbling blocks for multilateral negotiations. Justice claims of states which aim at strengthening individual rights, such as human rights or human security, often collide with statist sovereignty convictions such as the right of nonintervention, territorial integrity and noninterference. The paper seeks to exemplify such clashes of ideas in examining different recent negotiation processes and governance efforts at the United Nations, such as Responsibility to Protect (R2P) or the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
