Objections to the “global harm principle” with regard to migration policy

Abstract

This work points out problems that would arise from applying the “Global Harm Principle” (GHP), a non-ideal theory regarding global migrations. The Global Harm Principle derives from the “Harm Principle”, articulated by John Stuart Mill during the 19th century, expanded to include geopolitical relations and migratory flows. The article aims to refute GHP. Several objections are listed to demonstrate the unfeasibility of its implementation, through historical and socio-political reasoning, as well as thought experiments. We conclude by speculating that the deficiencies in GHP are due to its formulator, Shelley Wilcox, inadvertently falling into a fallacy of composition when expanding Mill’s reasoning to cover geopolitics and, afterwards, committing a fallacy of division when addressing harm compensation.