Abstract
In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls explains how his theory of justice can be extended to the international level. The Society of Peoples, he describes allows two kinds of bona fide members: liberal democratic societies and what he calls decent non-liberal people. Even though these 'decent' non-liberal people only respect basic human rights and don't have liberal democratic institutions, they are considered as 'tolerable' in the Society of Peoples. Rawls defines toleration as not only renouncing to impose sanctions to 'make them change their ways', but also to accept them as 'equal participating members in the good standing of the Society of Peoples'. He distinguishes, among decent non-liberal societies, decent consultation hierarchies and other non-liberal people. Decent consultation hierarchies have their members consulted, or at least they have a significant role in political decisions. They don't have aggressive aims and they respect a basic set of human rights. The question is to know why these peoples should be tolerated, that is to say what gives legitimacy to what Allen Buchanan calls a 'betrayal of liberalism'? Rawls's justification for this toleration is somewhat vague and based on facts in some respects, and doesn't seem be a real legitimate justification.
