This course material is designed and developed by Indira Gandhi National

Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and Krishna Kanta Handiqui State
Open University (KKHSOU), Guwahati.
 Bachelor of Arts
POLITICAL SCIENCES (BAPS)

BAPS-3
POLITICAL THEORY-CONCEPTS AND
DEBATES

Block – 2
Indispensability of Justice

UNIT-5 JUSTICE: MEANING AND TYPES

UNIT-6 PROCEDURAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
UNIT-7 GLOBAL JUSTICE
UNIT -5 JUSTICE: MEANING AND TYPES
Structure

5.1 Objective
5.2 Introduction
5.3 Meaning of justice
5.3.1 Definition of justice
5.4 Justice and law
5.5 Justice and Discrimination
5.6 Types of justice
5.6.1 Social justice
5.6.1.1 Predominance of the Interest of the Community
5.6.1.2 Reforms or Social Change
5.6.1.3 Pound‟s Illustration of Social Justice
5.6.1.4 Criticism of Social Justice
5.6.2 Economic justice
5.6.3 Political justice
5.7 Summary
5.8 Exercises
5.9 Reference
5.1 OBJECTIVE

After studying this unit, you should be able to:

 Define the meaning of Justice

 Define the difference between justice and laws
 Define justice and discrimination
 Explain different types of justice.

5.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, we shall first try to understand the meaning of justice and the concept in
its different aspects. We shall also try to bring out the relationship between justice on
one hand and law, liberty and equality on the other. Justice is one of the important
aims of the state. One of the earliest treaties on politics, Plato‟s „Republic‟ was an
attempt to construct a just state. Justice was its central concept. Therefore, a correct
understanding of this concept will help in Justice evaluating different political
systems, their policies and the ideologies on which they are based. Thus, justice is the
1
reconciler and synthesizer of political values and as said by Aristotle it is „what
answers to the whole of goodness‟.

5.3 MEANING OF JUSTICE

The term „„justice‟‟ is derived from Latin word “Jus” which means the idea of joining
or fitting, the idea of bond or tie. It is mainly concerned with the adjustment of human
relations. However, this concept has been used to denote different meanings in
different periods. The Greeks were the first to discuss the concept of justice. Greek
Philosopher Plato talked about idealist theory of justice and stressed on the moral
element of justice. In his concept of ideal state, Plato mentioned about four virtues:
wisdom, courage, temperance or self-control and justice. He also believes that justice
is resided in the mind of every citizen. According to him justice is the virtue to be
cultivated by the society through subordination of the irrational masses of producers
to the brave class of warriors and the rational class of philosopher kings.

Another Greek Philosopher Aristotle, the disciple of Plato on the other hand believes
that justice denotes an equality of proportion to the degrees to which individuals
differ in relevant respects. According to the Romans positive laws conforming to
higher laws was a perfect justice and of a rightful nature. The liberal view of justice
on the other hand lays greater stress on its legal and political aspects. According to
them, the rule of law is the first condition of justice. They also believed that the
political system based on justice provide to its citizens civil and political rights and
gives them an opportunity to take part in the political process. In the medieval period,
justice was viewed as implanted by God in every human mind and could be preserved
through the authority of the Church.

Thus we can see that the modern concept of justice is different from traditional
concept. The traditional concept of justice was mainly concerned with moral and
ethical aspects and therefore with certain virtues relating to morality. On the other
hand, the modern concept of justice emphasises the realisation of certain human
values. It is mainly concerned with social justice.

Any discussion of the concept of justice has to take into account its multi dimensional
character. The answer to „what is justice‟ can only be given by indicating guidelines
(values) along which men have thought of justice and will continue to do so. It
changes with the passage of time. Thus, what was justice in the past may be injustice
in the present and vice-versa. Thus, there have been the „egalitarian‟ perception of
justice where the highest place is accorded to the value of equality; the „libertarian‟
perception in which liberty is the ultimate value; the Divine view in which justice is
the execution of God‟s will, the „hedonist‟ makes „the greatest good of the greatest
number‟ the criterion of justice; to the „harmonizer‟ justice is the harmonizing of
different elements and values to produce a satisfactory balance. Some identify justice
2
with „duty‟ or with maintenance of peace and order; others view it as an elitist
function. Thus, justice concerns the right of the individual as well as the social
ordering of society. It is legal and moral at the same time. In short, it is an ethical
concept.

5.3.1 Definition of justice

 “Justice means to distribute the due share to everybody”. – Salmond

 “Justice protects the right of the individual as well as the other of the society”
– Dr. Raphael
 “Justice consists in a system of understanding and a procedure through which
each is accorded what is agreed upon as fair.” - C.E. Marriam

5.4 JUSTICE AND LAW

The Roman lawyers integrated the ideas of „natural justice‟ with the positive law of
the state. As such, the civil law and the law of nations are in conformity with the law
of nature. This, however, is an abstract phase of jurisprudence. Infact, justice lies in
the enforcement of the positive law. Both law and justice seek to sustain social order.
John Austin is the main advocate, who tells that the law has to function as an
instrument of justice, on the one hand, and function as an instrument to suppress
mischief, on the other.

Legally, the administration of justice can be criticised as unjust if it fails to meet the
standard of fairness required by the procedures of the legal system, viz. the accused
should be informed of the charges leveled against him; he should be given a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself etc; while morally, a law can be called
unjust for if it fails to meet the moral ideas of justice. Morality however goes beyond
justice.

The symbol of justice is often portrayed as blindfolded because it is supposed to be

impartial. That there should be no discrimination between the two extremes – rich or
poor, high or low. Therefore, impartiality becomes a precondition to justice. Does it
mean then that justice does not require discrimination at all?

5.5 JUSTICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Plato and Aristotle argued for a different interpretation of justice, “proportionate

equality” with the idea of “righteousness”. The philosophical interpretation of justice
takes an empirical direction at the hands of Aristotle who says: “Injustices arises
when equals are treated unequally”. This means that if in a democracy there is
discrimination on the basis of sex, it would mean treating the equals, unequally. Also,
it would be unfair to pit a heavy-weight wrestler against a lightweight one. Thus,
3
justice requires discrimination on the basis of differences, which is relevant to the
functions performed. Plato‟s theory of justice too implied that the life of people
should conform to the rule of functional specialization. Here, justice becomes another
name for the principal of „proper stations‟ i.e. a man should practice one thing only to
which his nature is best adapted. This has both individual and social aspects. The
highest good of both the individual and the society is conserved, if we take it for
granted that there is nothing better for a man than to do a work that he is best fitted to
do, there is equally nothing better for the society than to see that each should be
filling the station to which he is best entitled by virtue of the special element of his
personality. For this the three elements of reason, sprit and appetite have been
highlighted for the individual and the state, to keep their proper bounds.

Also, normally the law does not interfere in instances of discriminatory treatment in
private life. But if it causes social harm, the state would be justified in interfering in
it, like in instances of untouchability, where some groups are denied human rights.
Therefore, a law against it would be just. Also, the separate facilities accorded cannot
be truly equal. It is because of this that Dr. Ambedkar demanded the right of entry to
temples for Scheduled Castes and opposed separate temples, schools or hostels for
them.

5.6 TYPES OF JUSTICE

There are four types/kinds of justice such as – social, economic, political and legal.
These four justices are inter related and inter dependent. One justice is meaningless
with the absence of other. It means all these four justices are equally needed for an
individual.

5.6.1 Social Justice

The concept of social justice is broader than that of justice the word „social‟ is
connected with society. Its scope is wide, including social issues, problems and
reforms; thereby it encompasses social and economic change. Social justice involves
measures taken for the advancement of the depressed and disadvantaged classes of
society. Hence it calls for social engineering which is an attempt to change society in
order to deal with social problems. Such socio-economic changes can be brought
through law.

Social justice aims towards creating political, economic and social democracy, ending
class and caste distinctions. It combines the principles of socialism with the personal
freedom granted by democracy. So the word „social‟ has a wide connotation,
connected with society and how it should be organised, and what should be its social
values and structure.

The concept of justice can be defined by different perspectives. The Greek

philosopher Plato saw justice as the true principle of social life. According to Ernest

4
Barker, an English political scientist, justice was the hinge of Plato‟s thoughts and the
text of his discourse. Plato in his book The Republic discusses the concept of justice
through a dialogue with friends like Cephalus, Polemarchus and Glaucon.

Cephalus says justice consists in speaking the truth and paying one‟s debt, while
Polemarchus explains justice is in giving to each man what is proper for him. “Justice
is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies.” Glaucon argues justice is
in “the interest of the weaker Thrasymachus, a sophist of ancient
Greece, saw justice as the interest of the stronger, in other words, might is right.

Plato rejected all these definitions because they treated justice as something external
and artificial. For Plato, justice is the primary moral value and is intrinsically linked
with other essential and moral qualities.

Another Greek philosopher, Aristotle, propounded the concept of „distributive

justice‟. Aristotle‟s distributive justice is the name of that principle of distribution by
which goods, services, honour and offices are distributed among the citizens of the
state. But the principle of distribution is based upon the worth or virtue of an
individual. The principle recognizes and preserves distinction between the worthy and
the non-worthy. It counters equality of the unequal and ensures that a man‟s rights,
duties and rewards correspond to his merit and social contribution. Aristotelian
distributive justice is thus, another name for proportionate equality. The word
„justice‟ means fair treatment of people: which means law based on the principles of
justice and rationality, that is, equal rights and justice for all, irrespective of class,
sex, race or caste distinctions. It means that the state should deal with people correctly
and completely; it should be morally fair and reasonable; and it should frame just
laws and enact them justly.

The word „social justice‟ is formed by combining two words: social and justice. Each
has a specific meaning and they convey a particular meaning when conjoined.
According to John Rawls, the concept of social justice is:

All social primary goods – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the basis
of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all
of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured.

Roscoe Pound, a jurist, classifies three legally protected interests:

 Public Interests
 Social Interests and
 Private Interests

Justice V R Krishna Iyer, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, says, “Social
justice is not cant but conscience, not verbal borrowing from like documents but the

5
social force of the supreme law”. Social justice is people oriented; legal justice is
canalized, controlled and conferred by law.

The concept of social justice is multi-dimensional and has been viewed differently by
scholars of law, philosophy and political science. The term social justice is quite
comprehensive and presents as the balancing wheel between the haves and the have
not‟s. Social justice is the equitable distribution of social, material and political
resources to all citizens. It seeks to remove all social, economic and political
inequalities and discriminations, and affords equal opportunities to all men and
women in social affairs and economic activities. Social justice is the product of social
injustice; it seeks to ensure equality of status and opportunity to all. In general, it may
be defined as “the right of the weak, poor, aged, destitute, children, women and other
under-privileged persons in society”.

5.6.1.1 PREDOMINANCE OF THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY

With the decline of the laissez-faire doctrine, a new awareness has developed that the
rights of an individual should be reasonably restricted in the interests of the
community because the ends of social justice require the reconciliation of individual
rights with that of community interest. It also presumes that in the event of a conflict
between the two, the community interest must prevail over individual concerns.
Social justice is, thus, closely linked with the idea of what constitutes public good or
community interest. Today with the penetration of democracy into the social and
economic spheres, community interest has come to encompass not only the political
(fair treatment in political matters) but also the social (non- discrimination in social
areas) and economic (fair distribution of income and wealth) spheres. Thus, social
justice ranges from the protection of minority political rights to the abolition of
untouchability and the eradication of poverty. As such, in the backward countries of
the world, the idea of social justice enjoins upon the state to make concerted efforts
for the improvement of the downtrodden and weaker sections of the community.

5.6.1.2 Reforms or Social Change

Social justice is used to denote organization of society on the basis of ideas of

fairness and equality current at the time. It seeks a revision of social order so as to
have a more equitable society. Men through the ages have sought changes in social
order, just as much as they have also sought to preserve a given social order. Social
justice stands for reformative justice, for revision of the social order and a
redistribution of rights to suit current ideas of fairness. When Aristotle spoke of
„distributive justice‟ he had reformative or what Raphael calls “prosthetic” justice in
mind, because their aim was to modify the status quo.

A hundred years ago, justice did not require governments to take care of the
unemployed. Charity was supposed to do that. Due to the operation of notions of

6
“reformative” or “prosthetic” justice, today, it is considered the state‟s duty to take
care of the unemployed and provide them employment.

5.6.1.3 Pound’s Illustration of Social Justice

The affirmation of the idea of social justice is very well contained in the interpretation
of Dean Roscoe Pound who presents a six-fold illustration of social interest and lays
down eight jural postulates to ensure social justice. Thus, the idea of social justice
envisages to promote the welfare of the people by securing a just social order.

Social Justice

Social Interest Jural Postulates

1. In general security, e.g., peace, 1. That no wanton aggression is made

public health, security of by others;
acquisitions, etc.; 2. That parties with whom transactions
2. In security and social institutions, are entered into will act in good
e.g., marriage, religious institutions, faith;
etc.; 3. That there will be no hindrance in
3. In general morals, e.g., gambling, the enjoyment of one‟s acquisitions
drinking, immoral traffic, etc.; and creations;
4. In conservation of social resources, 4. That the person will not be exposed
e.g., food minerals, etc.; to undue risks and that others will act
5. In general progress, e.g., freedom of with due care and caution;
trade, encouragement of research, 5. That dangerous things kept by others
etc.; shall be cautiously and carefully kept
6. In individual rights, e.g., wages within its bounds;
conditions of work, etc. 6. That an employee has a right to
employment;
7. That society will share the
misfortunes which befall on the
individual; and
8. That proper compensation will be
paid to workers for necessary human
wear and tear in an industrial society.

7
5.6.1.4 Criticism of Social Justice

Theories of social justice are criticised on three grounds. Firstly, demands for social
justice, by implication, enlarge the activities of the state. The state, then, will have to
decide, “Who gets, what, when and how.” Where the officers of the state develop
vested interests, such subjective determination is not likely to serve the ends of social
justice. Secondly, policies of social justice and their implementation require
curtailment of liberty. How much of liberty should be sacrificed for how great/small
social justice becomes a problem difficult to solve. Lastly, it is difficult to assess
which are the basic needs that have to be satisfied to fulfill the criteria of social
justice and which justify departure from equality.

However, when the Indian Constitution announces reservation of seats in legislature,

educational institutions and public employment, it entails departure from equality.
Various justifications are offered for these policies in terms of justice. Firstly, that
such treatment compensates for the hundred years of deprivations. Secondly, that
these measures are necessary for realising ultimate equality to bring them on an equal
footing with society and thirdly, that justice can be done only if the state comes
forward with preferential policies to help them gain social respect, economic viability
and political status.

5.6.2 Economic Justice

Economic justice has been interpreted in different ways by the Liberals and the
Marxists. The liberals view economic justice as the satisfaction of all economic needs
of the people in a society. For that they advocate free market and free competition.
On the other hand, the Marxists believe that economic justice can be established only
in a classless society. Therefore the Marxists advocate the abolition of private
property and overthrowing of the capitalist state and establising a classless state. They
also believe that economic justice cannot be established in a society divided into rich
and poor or haves and have nots.

Economic justice is a part of social justice. It is a set of moral principles for building
economic equality and provide equal economic justice to all, the ultimate goal of
which is to create an opportunity for each person to create a sufficient material
foundation upon which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life. Social
justice and economic justice are related to each other and one is meaningless without
other. Economic rights and social rights are equally available to every citizen and
everybody enjoys these rights equally.

Economic justice is related to the concept of a welfare state; the primary goal of
economic justice is to promote national growth welfare of the community by
providing employment, equal opportunity, social security and minimum standard of

8
living. The preamble of Indian constitution also speaks about social, economic and
political justice.

The planning commission, the parliament and the state legislature have passed
various regulations to implement economic justice. There are two principles
regarding the concept of economic justice namely liberal principle and socialistic
Principle. The liberal thinkers support economic competition and support for private
property. On the other hand the supporters of socialistic principle say that the private
property must be abolish and all the economic activities and property should be
control by the society.

Economic justice demands that all citizens should have equal and adequate
opportunity to earn their livelihood and equal pay for equal work. The economic
justice says that the state should provide economic security to its people like security
during illness, old age and on disability. Including all other economic justice people
should get equal and fair distribution of wealth.

Economic justice is necessary for all because a person and a state cannot be
developed without economic justice and equality. Further social development is not
possible without economic development and economic justice. Therefore we may
says that social and economic justice are the two sides of a same coin.

5.6.3 Political Justice

Political Justice mainly deals with the actual politics through which the political
process attains the principle of justice. Every citizen must have the right to participate
in the political process freely and should be able to enjoy the right to vote and contest
in elections without any discrimination on the basis of caste, class, creed, sex, etc.
Political justice prevails when the government in based on the will of the people and
remains responsive to public opinion.

Political justice means equal, free and fair opportunities to the people for participation
in the political process. It stands for the grant of equal political rights to all the people
without discrimination. The Constitution of India provides for a liberal democracy in
which all the people have the right and freedom to participate.
Political justice not only means that all citizens have only the rights to participate in
the political process but also they have the right to hold public office and get
government service. Including other country the constitution of India also provide
right to speech and expression through which a person can express his views freely.
The citizen has not only the right to speech and expression but also they have the
right to criticise the government.

In simple, political justice means free, fair and equal opportunity for all to participate
in the affairs of the government. Everybody must get equal opportunity to form

9
political parties and contest in the election process and form the government. In a
democratic country not only the ruling party but also the opposition parties have the
equal importance for the development of a country. For the welfare of the country
people have the political rights to form groups for overall development or welfare of
the people.

By the term political justice it is implied that the citizens equally share the use of
political power in the State so that they may be able to associate themselves with the
administration and also fully enjoy all types of political freedom. Article 326 of the
Indian Constitution entitles every Indian citizen above the age of 18 years to exercise
his right to vote to elect his representatives without any sort of discrimination or
limitations.

The following provisions have been made for the attainment of political justice:

1) Right to Hold Public Office

2) Right to Criticise the Government
3) Right to form Political Organisations
4) Right to Protest
5) Protection of Rights

From this above discussion w may says that enjoyment of equal political rights by all
is the main aims of political justice.

5.7 SUMMARY

What we have seen that justice is essentially a normative concept having its place in
various spheres like religion, ethics and law though its ramifications cover social,
political and economic spheres. Impartiality is a necessary condition of justice.
Impartiality does not mean treating everyone equally without discrimination. One
interpretation is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally. But chiefly
discrimination has to be on relevant criteria. Justice requires discrimination of values
on a just basis. Different theories support or the order of these. Social justice
emphasises the needs of the people. It also calls for preferential policies in the Indian
social context. As against this, procedural justice requires the rule of law and
elimination of arbitrariness.

5.8 EXERCISE

1. What is justice? Define the meaning of justice.

2. What is the relationship between justice and law?

10
 3. Define the relationship between justice and discrimination.
4. What are the different types of justice?
5. Define Ambedkar‟s views on social justice.
6. Why economic justice is needed for social development?

5.9 REFERENCE

 Bellamy, Richard and Mason, Andrew (1993) (eds.) „Political Concepts‟

Manchester, Manchester University Press.
 Knowles, Dudley. (2001) „Political Philosophy‟, London, Routledge.
 Mckinnon, Catriona (2008) (ed.) „Issues in Political Theory‟, New York:
Oxford University Press.
 Swift, Adam. (2001) „Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Student‟s
and Politicians‟, Cambridge, Polity Press.
 Allen, C.K., 1955, Aspects of Justice, Steven and Sons, London.
 Barry, Norman P., 1981. An Introduction to Modern Political theory,
Macmillan, London.
 Ernest Barker, 1967, Principles of Social and Political Theory, London,
Oxford University.
 Raphael, D.D., 1976 (2nd Ed.). Problems of Political Philosophy, Macmillan,
London.

 Verma, S. P. (1996) „Modern Political Theory‟, Vikash Publishing, 3rd

Reprint, New Delhi.
 Vinod, M.J and Deshpande, Meena ( 2013) Contemporary Political Theory,
PHI, New Delhi
 Ramaswamy, Sushila (2010), „Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts‟, PHI
Learning, New
 Delhi
 Bellamy, R. (1993), (ed.) Theories and Concepts of Politics. New York:
Manchester
 University Press.
 Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) „Theory and Methods in Political Science‟.
London,
 Macmillan.
 Heywood, Andrew (2016) (Reprint), „Political Theory: An Introduction‟,
Palgrave, UK.

11
UNIT-6 PROCEDURAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Structure

6.1 Objective
6.2 Introduction
6.3 What is procedural justice?
6.4 John Rawls‟s theory of justice
6.5 Distributive justice
6.5.1 Distributive Justice and Economic Justice
6.6 Justice: A term of Synthesis
6.7 Summary
6.8 Exercise
6.9 Reference
6.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this unit, you should be able to:

 Define the meaning of procedural Justice
 Define John Rawls‟s theory of justice
 Define the meaning of distributive justice
 Explain the relationship between distributive justice and economic justice.

6.2 INTRODUCTION
In this unit we shall understand procedural justice, distributive justice. Procedural
justice is closely related to the tradition of liberalism. According to this viewpoint, the
function of justice is to regulate the mutual relation between individuals and groups.
Distributive justice is not a new concept it is as old as the days of Aristotle, he define
distributive justice in a conservative ways. The concept of justice must be defined in
terms of modern social consciousness. The concept of desert (from the old French
word deserte, meaning to deserve) refers to the action of men and women that result
in special treatment either in the form of rewards or punishments. It is to suggest that
the rewards or punishment that a man or women receive, or subjected to, are a
consequence of his or her efforts and actions.
6.3 WHAT IS PROCEDURAL JUSTICE?
A more narrow view of justice is known as procedural justice. In this sense, the term
is used not so much to prescribe redistribution of wealth or values as to the rules and
procedures applied to individual actions. Essentially, it seeks to eliminate
arbitrariness in human actions and supports the rule of law. This conception deals
with individuals and not collectivities. In this view, not sticking to rules and
12
procedures, jumping the queue or giving unfair advantage to some in competition
would be unjust. The procedural theorists (for example Hayek) believe that imposing
criteria for redistribution of wealth would lead to totalitarianism and an unjustified
sacrifice of liberty. It involves constant intervention by the state to maintain the
pattern required by equality. They feel that even if the state follows a policy of
welfare, this has little to do with justice.

Critics of procedural theory of justice argue that mere following of rules does not
ensure a just result. The rules farmed in a social context are weighed in favour of
some groups. Therefore, a free competition may not always be a fair competition.
Secondly, a free market relationship can be equally coercive for individuals who lack
economic power; for them the liberty of a free market would be meaningless.

Procedural justice which is otherwise known as formal justice is a process through

which rules are made. In simple procedural justice describe how these rules are made
and whether these rules are just or not. According to procedural justice if the
procedure of decision making is just then the outcome is always just. Procedural
justice always follows the legal procedure and gives importance to social advantage
and goodness. The central theme of procedural justice is to provide fair and equal
justice to all without any discrimination.

The supporters of procedural justice are Herbert Spencer, F.A Hayek, Milton
Friedman and Robert Nozick. The supporters of this justice believe that fair justice
regulate the relationship among the individuals. In a society people makes contract in
their relation procedural justice believes that contract must be based on their own
freedom fair and just.

From this above points we may says that procedural justice accepts fair justice,
human dignity and reject all forms of discrimination among individual on the grounds
of cast, colour, religion, sex, creed, language. In other words procedural justice is
essential for securing justice.

6.4 JOHN RAWLS’S THEORY OF JUSTICE

Different political theories offer different pictures of what would be a really just
social order. Two of these theories are, the utilitarian theory, and John Rawls‟s theory
of justice as fairness. Utilitarian theory asserts that the social order in which the
largest number of people can have the highest satisfaction of their utility is just. But
from its very early days, critics have found great difficulties with utilitarianism. In
this backdrop, Rawls‟s theory has offered, an alternative to utilitarianism. Rawls‟s
book, Theory of Justice gives a final interpretation of the concept.

To discuss Rawls‟s theory of justice, his method of approaching moral problems must
be mentioned first, which is in the contractarian tradition of social philosophy. But at

13
the same time, Rawls‟s method entails that the conclusions of moral reasoning are
always checked and readjusted against intuitive moral notions and this contrasts with
others in the contractarian tradition, who maintain that the rules of justice are those
that would be agreed to in a hypothetical setting.

Rawls places men behind the „veil of ignorance‟ in a hypothetical original position
where individuals are deprived of the basic knowledge of their wants, interests, skills,
abilities and of the things that generate conflicts in actual societies. But they will have
what Rawls calls „a sense of justice‟.

Under these circumstances, Rawls argue, people will agree to accept two principles of
justice in the lexical order. First, is the equality principle where each person is to have
an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a similar liberty to
others? Here, equal liberties can be concretised as the familiar rights of liberal
democratic regimes. They include the equal right to political participation, freedom of
expression, religious liberty, equality before the law and so on. The second principle
Justice is called the difference principle where Rawls argues that inequalities can only
be justified, if it benefits the least advantaged.

John Rawls‟s concept of justice has two aspects to it. Firstly, it postulates a
“constitutional democracy”, that is, government of laws and one, which is restrained,
responsible and accountable. Secondly, it believes in the regulation of the free
economy “in a certain way”. “If law and government”, writes Rawls‟s, “act
effectively to keep market competitive, resources fully employed, property and
wealth widely distributed over time, and to maintain the appropriate social minimum,
then if there is equality of opportunity underwritten by education for all, the resulting
distribution will be just”.

The “redistributionists” have their critics too. Thus, Mare F. Plattner makes two
arguments against the view of justice. Firstly, he believes that although equality is a
cherished value, it may not be possible to have it at the expense of efficiency.
According to Plattner, this problem of equality versus increased wealth lands Rawls
into an inconsistency. Thus, on the one hand, Rawls “absolutely refuses to allow that
those who make a greater economic contribution deserve greater economic rewards”.
Yet his “difference principle” (which specifies that “social and economic inequalities
are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged”)
nonetheless affirms that it is just to grant them greater economic rewards insofar as
these serve as incentives to increase their contribution in ways that ultimately benefit
the disadvantaged.

The second argument Plattner makes is that the redistributionist wants to refuse to the
individual the reward of his “honest industry “and instead, considers all produce as
the “common asset” of society as a whole. And this Plattner wants us to believe,

14
undermines the “moral foundations of private property and therewith of liberal
society”.

6.5 DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

The idea of Aristotle came to lay down the foundation of what is called the doctrine
of distributive justice. The essential implication of Aristotle‟s explanation is that
justice is either „distributive‟ or „corrective‟; the former requires equal distribution
among the equals and the latter applying wherein remedy for a wrong is provided.

The principle that Marx puts forward for distributive justice in the post- revolutionary
socialist society is „from each according to his ability to each according to his work.
The idea of distributive justice is reflected in the work of some recent political
economists. In this context, reference to the work of J.W. Chapmen deserves merit,
who seeks to integrate the idea of justice with his principles of „economic rationality
of man‟ and „consumer‟s sovereignty‟ coupled with the individual claim of „moral
freedom‟. To him, the first principle of justice appears to be the distribution of
benefits, which maximise benefits in accordance with the principle of consumer‟s
Justice Sovereignty. The second principle is that a system is unjust, if the material
well being of a few is purchased at the expense of many. It implies that justice
requires that no one shall gain at the expense of another.

6.5.1 Distributive Justice and Economic Justice

Distributive justice subjects to the condition of general welfare. It demands that the
state of national economy be reshaped in a way that the benefits are made available to
the common man. In this way, the idea of economic justice comes to imply a
socialistic pattern of society.

The first task of economic justice is to provide employment, food, shelter and
clothing to every able-bodied citizen. In regard to this area of satisfying the primary
and basic needs of all, it has been correctly said that freedom is meaningless if it
prevents the achievement of economic justice. Thus, the liberals believe that
economic justice can be attained in society if the state provides welfare services and
there is progressive system of taxation; a fair return for work provision of social
security like old age pension, gratuity and provident fund.

However, the Marxist view of justice has its origins in the area of economics.
According to Marx, the positive law of the state is imposed on its members by the
authority of the class, which controls the means of production. Law is determined by
the economic interest of the ruling class. When private property is abolished and the
working class controls the means of production, then the laws are bound to reflect the
interest of the working class. Therefore, the content of justice depends upon the class
controlling the means of production. When the state withers away, as contemplated
by the communists, there will be justice without an economic origin.
15
Modern liberals have since long given up the doctrine of economic laissez-faire.
Redistributive justice (of which Aristotle spoke) is an integral part of „revisionist
liberalism‟ as advocated by J.W. Chapmen, John Rawls and Arthur Okun. These
writers advocate “redistributive justice” with its implication of state intervention in
the economy in the interest of justice and freedom for all.

6.6 JUSTICE: A TERM OF SYNTHESIS

Perhaps, the best approach to justice is to view it as a term of synthesis. The problem
of justice is one of conciliation. The function of justice is the conciliation of different
liberties (political, social and economic) with each other; the different equalities
(political, social and economic) with each other as well as the task of conciliating
liberty in general, in all its forms, with equality in general, in all its forms. In brief,
justice means the synthesis of conflicting values and holding these together in some
state of equilibrium.

Many eminent writers have chosen to take sides in the liberty versus equality tussle.
Lord Acton had, many years ago; made the memorable pronouncement that “the
passion for equality made vain the hope of freedom” (he was speaking in the context
of the French revolution). The champions of “liberty alone” like W. E. Lecky in his
book Democracy and Liberty claim that, “Equality is only attained by a stringent
repression of natural development”.

Actually, liberty and equality both matter; as Carritt puts it, they involve one another.
Freedom has a better content if there is equality. And, at the same time it is freedom
that enables men to demand equality. Give men liberty and they are sooner, rather
than later, going to ask for equality. The interlinking between liberty and equality can
be brought out in many ways. Take the case of freedom of speech and vote, both of
which can be vitiated by a grossly uneven distribution of wealth. The wealthy are in a
better position not only to contest but also to propagate. The wealthy have easier
access to the propaganda apparatus. Harold Laski‟s words still ring true: “Every
attempt of an individual to assert his liberty in a society of unequal will be challenged
by the powerful”. In short, we find that political liberty and economic democracy
have to go hand in hand. And if we examine several political values, we find though
apparently they may appear mutually contradictory, on closer examination, they will
be found to be complementary and interlinked. In any case, it is the function of justice
to synthesize or reconcile the various and often-conflicting values. Justice is the final
principle, which controls the distribution of various rights, political, social and
economic in the interests of liberty as well as equality.

Such a concept of justice grows historically as a process of development of social

thought. In this sense, it is a growing concept reflecting social reality and aspiration.

16
6.7 SUMMARY

Justice requires discrimination of values on a just basis. Different theories support or

the order of these. Social justice emphasises the needs of the people. It also calls for
preferential policies in the Indian social context. As against this, procedural justice
requires the rule of law and elimination of arbitrariness.

In Rawls‟s theory of justice, individuals have to make a choice of social order. They
would naturally prefer an egalitarian society. His theory grants equal basic liberties
for all. Inequalities should be attached to offices open to all. They should benefit the
disadvantaged section the most.

In the end, however, instead of delving deep into the debate over the perplexing
connotations of justice, it shall be worthwhile to say that it is the connecting bond of
all-important political values. For instance, there can be no liberty if the norm of
equality is violated and there can be no equality if there is no justice. Obviously,
justice is integrally connected with the norms of liberty and equality. Likewise, we
may say that there can be no liberty if there is no right, and there is no protection of
rights, if there is no well organized system of law to ensure the administration of
justice. Obviously, once again, the idea of justice is essentially bound up with the
concepts of rights and law. The most important point to be taken note of at this stage
is that not only the idea of justice is integrally connected with the norms of law,
liberty, equality and rights, but that it constitutes the essential link. Justice in this
sense is the reconciler and synthesizer of political values. Daniel Webster was
perfectly right when he said that justice “is the chiefest interest of man”.

6.8 EXERCISE

1. What is procedural justice?

2. Define johns Rawls‟s theory of justice.
3. Define Mare F. Plattner views on justice.
4. What is distributive justice?
5. Define the relationship between distributive justice and Economic justice.
6. What is global justice? Define.

6.9 REFERENCE

• Knowles, Dudley. (2001) „Political Philosophy‟, London, Routledge.

• Mckinnon, Catriona (2008) (ed.) „Issues in Political Theory‟, New York: Oxford
University Press.

17
• Swift, Adam. (2001) „Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Student‟s and
Politicians‟, Cambridge, Polity Press.

• La Follett, Hugh (2003) (ed.) „The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethic‟. New York,
Oxford University Press.

• Knowles, Dudley. (2001) „Political Philosophy‟, London, Routledge.

• Verma, S. P. (1996) „Modern Political Theory‟, Vikash Publishing, 3rd Reprint,

New Delhi.

• Vinod, M.J and Deshpande, Meena (2013) Contemporary Political Theory, PHI,
New Delhi

• Ramaswamy, Sushila (2010), „Political Theory: Ideas and Concepts‟, PHI Learning,
New Delhi

• Bellamy, R. (1993), (ed.) Theories and Concepts of Politics. New York: Manchester
University Press.

• Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) „Theory and Methods in Political Science‟. London,
Macmillan.

• Heywood, Andrew (2016) (Reprint), „Political Theory: An Introduction‟, Palgrave,

UK.

18
UNIT-7 GLOBAL JUSTICE
Structure

7.1 Objective
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Justice on Global Level?
7.4 Global Distributive Justice
7.5 Summary
7.6 Exercise
7.7 Reference
7.1 OBJECTIVE
After reading this Unit, you will be able to:

 Describe the Concept of Global Justice in International Politics

 Describe an overview of the philosophical debates and some of the most
important themes under it.
 Explain Justice on Global Level.
 Describe Global Distributive Justice

7.2 INTRODUCTION

For a major part discussions and understanding of justice has remained tied to domain
of domestic and state is seen as guarantor of justice in the national domain. However,
as the forces and processes of contemporary globalisation continue to integrate
different parts of the world into a global economic system, so have the arguments for
expanding the scope of Justice gained greater traction in both academias as well as in
the social sphere? The effects of laws and policies of one country have effects that
transcend the national geographic boundaries. Justice in these cases, thus, does not
remain a reserve of the nation-state alone.

Thus, for past three decades or so, the idea of justice on a global scale has come to
animate both the philosophical and theoretical debates as well as the actions
stemming from our understanding of the notion.

Questions such as - what is just, what constitutes justice, what are the procedures to
ensure justice, who dispenses justice – have been debated for a long time and have
been answered differently in various societies depending on the context and the socio-
economic-political situation. Long history of European colonialism and the western
hegemony over knowledge and knowledge systems have also come to mean that our

19
most accepted definitions also stem from western political philosophies, debates on
modernity and classical ideals in liberal theories.

There has been a growing trend in the post-colonial societies to both unearth their
own philosophical schools of understanding and to test their applicability in the
contemporary times. However most of our discussions still continue in the legacy of
western liberal thought with modern nation-state as the primary reference of inquiry
and understanding. It is in the same frame that the paper will seek to discuss the issue
of global justice. The paper does not undertake to do an exhaustive study and is aimed
at providing an overview of the philosophical debates and some of the most important
themes under it.

7.3 JUSTICE ON GLOBAL LEVEL?

The debate on the questions of global justice thus is mostly among the philosophers
and scholars who argue for distributive justice in the domestic domain. However
there are some ways in which procedural accounts of justice do appear in
international politics. We will discuss that briefly first before we move on the debates
on distributive aspects of global justice. There is also substantial difference between
accounts of international and global. International literally means the between nations
while global is also generally understood to encompass actors other than the nation-
state and processes that are also beyond the complete control of national
governments. For our discussion we will use the term international and global as
explained here.

Theories of International Relations like Realism and Neo-realism use the Hobbesian
conception of „state of nature‟ as one of their most fundamental assumptions. Thus, it
is characterised by system of states without a legitimate centralised authority. In such
a system, in the absence of a single centralised authority with sovereign right to use
power to establish law and order leads to a state of anarchy, thus, a Hobbesian state of
nature. In such a scenario, considerations of order are seen to take precedence over
considerations of justice (Beitz 1999:181) and whereby justice is largely ignored.
However, for Idealists, justice is a prerequisite and constitutive of a stable order, and
anarchy is not a given in absence of a centralised authority.

Apart from this major difference, International Law post-Second World War
embodies some of the moral standards, rules and regulations, rights and duties of
states for international justice. However demands for distributive justice for re-
distribution of world‟s resources have not become embedded in international law.
Though one can cite some isolated examples in treaties where re-distribution is
institutionalised through funds like in the case of Montreal Protocol for a specific
issue area, it is difficult to state that institutions found at international level are geared
towards fulfilling grounds of justice, whatever they maybe.

20
Given the dissatisfaction with traditional International Relations theory in providing
with a moral framework, and realities of an interconnected world with technological
advancement render the idea of justice contained within the boundaries of nation-state
limited in its scope, and in denial of the reality of a globalised world. The claims
about world being unjust stem from concerns about massive inequalities on a global
level that are a product of contemporary globalisation with its historical roots in
colonialism, industrial revolution and awareness stemming from the advancement in
communication technologies. The concerns around human rights abuse by multi-
national corporations and national governments, poverty, hunger, malnutrition,
inequality, democracy, bioethics, trade, war and peace have manifested into several
movements. The movements around the said issues mostly question the contemporary
neo-liberal economic globalisation that has come to divide the world into haves and
have-nots. One such movement that has the demand of justice in its name is the
Global Justice Movement. It seeks to “present well thought out alternatives to
traditional globalisation efforts…emphasis is on inclusiveness and abundance for all,
rather than a continuance of outmoded thinking and institution.” However, it is not
the only movement raising concerns of justice, but one is explicit in its articulation.
There are whole hosts of trans-national movements with organisations from different
countries coordinating their work and activities together on range of issues. It is to be
noted here that the movements are different from the theoretical challenges that are
encountered while working towards a normative understanding of what constitutes
Global Justice. However, these movements serve to underline important ethical issues
and inform the questions that philosophers have in their quest towards understanding
the concept theoretically.

In normative theory, theorists and philosophers strongly supporting strongly

egalitarian principles in a society or the domestic domain are the ones who discuss the
distributive and procedural aspects of Global Justice. Thus, it is a “dispute between
among those who believe that inequalities must be severely limited to help the less
well off, to combat unfair inequalities of power and to maintain the sense of moral
equality that underlies a liberal society”

For Libertarians or the theorists who feel distribution in society should be based
purely on „desert‟ and should be procedurally driven, do not support redistributive
measures undertaken by the State. Therefore, it is easy to deduce that Libertarians
would not discuss the concept of Global Justice as addressing inequalities globally
require redistribution in resources (ibid). However, within Libertarians, there are also
those who support the view that all human beings should have the opportunity to
achieve a basic minimum level of well being. After this has been achieved, it is not
required for them to seek re-distribution in the society. This view can be called
Humanitarianism. So, while they will support a basic minimum level of well being
for all human beings, they will not ask re-distribution between countries with unequal
levels of wealth and welfare once the basic minimum is reached.

21
Another strand of procedural account is found in the democratic theories in arena of
international politics. Like the procedural theories in domestic sphere, it is argued that
international law and policies are justifiable through an accepted legal process, based
on the consent of the states. States that violate their domestic principles of justice or
human rights can still claim legitimacy in the international sphere. Concerns of
substantive justice hold equal relevance internationally too. International law and
norms can create unequal outcomes for different countries through following of due
process due to unequal power relations manifesting in unequal capabilities. The
substantive basis for procedures, rules, norms and processes are as important as the
procedures in the work towards justice. There have appeal for changing the substance
of different international laws to make them more just as well as for changing the
structure of the international organisations and different processes to reflect the
transformation in the world politics. However, there are arguments stating that in
absence of a clear consensus on the various substantive aspects of justice
internationally, deference to procedure though maybe utilitarian but serves as the best
preserve of justice until agreement on substantive aspects are reached

Justice, in the domestic and national sphere, is articulated using social-contract theory
by most philosophers i.e. to say that individuals are in a social contract with the state
and derive their rights and duties from it while State has the sole authority to use
legitimate force (see Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). For many to extrapolate the
principles of justice from the domestic sphere to a global one is difficult in the
absence of an analogous political community with something akin to a world
government. There are two major arguments for this. Firstly, consensus on common
principles of justice can only be between those who share a State. Secondly, only the
State can be a guarantor of justice given its monopoly on legitimate use of force, and
control over institutions that incorporate the norms and principles that lead to just
ends. There are several strands of thought within this view ranging from liberal
nationalists to communitarians that argue for a conception of justice applied within
the bounded area of a nation state.

This division between the Global vs. Domestic becomes the first contention in the
debate on whether and how the principles of justice in domestic sphere can be applied
to the global. These views are broadly interpreted as Statists and contain within them
several strands ranging from Social Egalitarianism, liberal nationalists to
communitarians. Their central claim remains that justice in subject of the state though
their reasons for arguing for such a case range from different assumptions.

Social Egalitarians argue that states have the duty to bring equality to their own
citizens as justice is primarily an internal matter, and thus each state have only a duty
within its own sphere. As long as all states are internally just, particular states do not
have duties to address inequalities among humankind. Inequalities between societies
that are internally just with inequalities in each society justified and limited are

22
acceptable. Thus, a just world exists when each society is just regardless of its general
level of welfare. Given they are egalitarians; they hold that basic rights of individuals
everywhere are respected and their minimum subsistence needs are met, and to the
extent of fulfilling these basic humanitarian aims, they support redistribution in a
society.

However, for many this Statist understanding of Justice is limiting for human beings
as birth of an individual in a nation is a morally arbitrary fact. The interconnectedness
of States and countries gives rise to a strong thrust towards broadening the definition
of Justice and what it entails for individuals. This school of understanding is known
as Cosmopolitanism. The individuals are seen as citizens of world rather than just the
citizens of a nation-state. At its foundation is the view that social bonds exists
between people as citizens of this world. An individual‟s birth in a particular country
is a morally arbitrary fact and should not limit one‟s chances at leading a good life.
The underlining assumption is based on the moral equality of all human beings and
the place of birth or origin in a country, state, society should not have a bearing on the
moral equality of an individual. Thus, sovereign states are not the primary and the
sole arena of justice even though they have an important role to play in global justice.
Only producing justice internally is not sufficient. States should not only work
towards bringing sufficient equality to their own citizens but also work towards
promoting equality worldwide (Landesman: 423-424). Fundamental principles of
distributive justice should apply to all human being regardless of the fact of the
country of their birth.

As a starting point, let us go back again to Rawls. He uses the domestic society with
its basic structure as the site for cooperative ventures of mutual advantage and
arrivesat the liberty principle and difference principle. In international sphere, the
results obtained are through the representatives of peoples in the International
Original Position (IOP) who arrive at markedly different principles as it is not
obvious which international institutions have a basic structure in the relevant sense. In
IOP, participants have knowledge of the fact that they are representatives of nations
leading normal lives, but without the knowledge of the particular circumstances of
their nations. The participants chose the principle of equality which translates that
every nation has the equal right to self-determination without interference from the
other nations. These principles are criticised on the ground of what is arrived at by
people in the original position in a domestic self-contained society. Many argue that
the noninterference and non-aggression are minimal liberal principles and participants
in the IOP might also argue for a difference principle that benefits those with less
endowment of natural resources.

Charles Beitz in his 1979 book „Political Theory and International Relations‟ argues
that Rawls‟s assumption of national societies as self contained is not valid given the
interdependence of the nations at global level. Therefore, there is no need for a

23
second contract at international level between the state representatives. Furthermore
he contends that the principles that will be teased out from the international original
position would be analogous to the ones agreed in the original position from behind
the veil of ignorance. In IOP, representatives would not accept the principle that
natural resources belong to the state whose territories encompass them as it is
arbitrary. Beitz argues that the existing distribution of natural resources is arbitrary
and no state deserves its endowment. Thus, from behind a veil of ignorance,
representatives would not know if their own states were richly endowed or not, in
such a case they would seek to arrive at the difference principle where resources are
distributed equally by way of a wealth tax. He, thus, argued for a global application of
Rawls‟s Theory of Justice where the difference principle becomes the global
difference principle where the inequalities in allocation of primary goods are only
allowed when the position of the globally represented disadvantaged people is
improved. He also finds it problematic to derive principles at the level of group as
Rawls proposes for the international level, instead of the levels of individuals.

Beitz‟s „Political Theory and International Relations (1979), demonstrated the

importance of ethics and political theory in international relations. He offered what is
believed to be the first most persuasive argument for global principles of justice at the
time. Beitz repudiates the Hobbesian state of nature claims of realist and non-realist
theories of international relations that makes moral judgements inapplicable in such a
setting. According to him, state of nature argument is both empirically false and
theoretically untenable given the levels of interdependence along with inequality of
power and wealth at global level. In addition to that, he also critiqued the autonomy
of states assumption as the justice or lack of it in the state‟s domestic institutions. He
applies the contractarian logic of Rawls‟s original position and veil of ignorance to
the international sphere, generates a cosmopolitan transformation of Rawls‟ theory.
He argues that correct application of Rawls‟ Theory of Justice justifies a global
resource distribution and global difference principle to establish a fair division of
resources of wealth among persons situated in diverse national societies.

Theorists such as Michael Walzer (1977, 1992), strongly argue that at international
level states have rights of autonomy that insulate them from external moral
assessment and political interference from other states. He further argues that general
duty towards other human beings will be over ridden by the special obligations
individuals have towards their family, community or nations. Thus, for Walzer
abstracts principles of cosmopolitan view are not rooted in specific contexts and
cannot be used to globally apply.

However, Rawls in his „Laws of Peoples‟(1993, 1999) reiterates his initial position
that the principles of justice are derived differently in the domestic society than in
international system or as he puts it between the „peoples‟. For individuals, the rights
are derived at domestic level, and for peoples the laws are derived internationally. For

24
purposes of theory, Rawls says that it is important to assume that societies are self
contained cooperative schemes for mutual advantage. At international level, he writes
that „this account of Laws of Peoples conceives of liberal democratic people‟s (and
decent peoples) as actors in the Society of Peoples, just as citizens are the actors in
domestic society” (1999: 23). It is important to note the important distinction Rawls‟s
makes between peoples and state in an international setting to foil the arguments of
Realist and Neo-Realist camps. Thus, iterating that “if a state‟s concern with power is
predominant; and if its interests include such things as converting other societies to
the state‟s religion, enlarging its empire and winning territory, gaining dynastic or
national prestige and glory, and increasing its relative economic strength – then the
difference between states and peoples is enormous” (1999: 28).

International Original Position is reframed as the Second Original Position (SOP) and
what are selected are more the principles that detail the fundamental rights and duties
of „Society of well ordered people‟ and as guiding foreign policy than are an argued
case for distributive justice.

According to Rawls, the principles chosen from SOP are the following:

1. Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to
be respected by other peoples.
2. Peoples are to observe treaties and under takings.
3. Peoples are equal and are par ties to the agreements that bind them.
4. Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention.
5. Peoples have the rig ht of self-defense but no rig ht to instigate war for
reasons other than self-defense.
6. Peoples are to honor human rights.
7. Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions in the conduct of war.
8. Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable
conditions that prevent their having a justor decent political and social regime
(1999:37)

This list of principles is subject to interpretation and according to Rawls, interpreted

in the right way, the principles will ensure that they are fair to all and parties
representing them will not reject them. His criteria for a decent society together with
his list of derived duties and rights provide foundational content for a reasonably just
system of international law. There is an important development from his earlier
formulation especially in the eight principle„ duty to assistance‟ which includes the
distributive elements with a view to helping the „burdened societies‟.

Beitz‟s position also evolves from his original argument of extending the principles of
distributive justice to global sphere. He bases his argument on the Kantian moral
equality of people and not so much on the contractarian framework as an expository
tool although degree of interdependence between societies and nations has only

25
increased since the publication of his book in 1979. In the afterword of the 1999
edition of his book, he demarcates between week and strong theses of global
distributive justice or respectively distinction between moral cosmopolitanism and
institutional cosmopolitanism (1999). According to him, it is difficult to contain all
the requirements of justice across diverse societies, institutions, laws and norms at
different levels within a single normative framework. Membership in a political or an
institutional structure would always mediate the standards of justice as they are
applied to individuals. Thus, the requirements of social justice would vary depending
on both - context and urgency. Thereby, he also rejects that understanding that human
rights should become the standards for international social justice as international
community cannot take complete responsibility of all components societies.

For Beitz a uniform normative theory of global justice is a difficult proposition

because the appropriate subject for such a theory does not exist. It is however
important to that as far as possible, normal functions of global institutions should
result in distributions that are regarded as just. So while in Beitz earliest formulations
we see that he argues for human rights as derivative of social justice, he changes it
stance and argues that human rights are normative constructs and a result of post
second world war period and play a discursive role and are not as such an evolution
of natural rights as it is commonly assumed to be in the human rights literature. The
discussion on human rights though an important subject within global justice would
not be discussed here. For our purposes, we need to investigate the claims made for
justice on a global level and the different variants in it. However, Beitz‟s influence on
the debates on global justice has been significant and come to inform the
Cosmopolitanism view.

Thomas Nagel (2005) in his essay „The Problem of Global Justice‟ writes that the
distributive principles in Rawls‟s Theory of Justice cannot be delinked from its
political aims. According to Nagel, Rawls principles and its application is are a
justification for a coercive legal system, and without it all claims of justice outside of
state are negated for lack of presence of a coercive legal system. Justice, for Nagel, as
moral value is an important attribute of a coercive system, and thus justice as a moral
value without a system that can coerce individual in the name of justice is not a
possible scenario.

7.4 GLOBAL DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE:

Thomas Pogge has expounded of the strongest and most extensive arguments for
global justice using principles of distributive justice.

Firstly, theoretically to make the argument that the principles of distributive justice
that are derived in the domestic setting of nation-state it is imperative for the theorists
to show that something akin to a basic structure exists globally. Beitz and Pogge both
argue that international trade and the institutions deciding the framework and the
26
allocation of advantages of the trade between international actors can be said to
represent a basic structure as it is a site for cooperation where the principles of justice
ought to apply. Beitz states that „If evidence of global economic and political
interdependence shows the existence of a global scheme of social cooperation, we
should not view national boundaries as having fundamental moral significance. Since
boundaries are not coextensive with the scope of social cooperation, they do not mark
the limits of social obligation. Thus the parties to the original position cannot be
assumed to know that they are members of a particular national society, choosing
principles of justice primarily for that society. The veil of ignorance must extend to
all matters of national citizenship, and the principles chosen will therefore apply
globally” (Beitz 1979:151).

This view is contended by Brian Barry as he argues that act of trading goods and
services in it cannot be said to represent a cooperative venture, for example the spice
trade between east and west was not a cooperative enterprise (Barry 1982:233). Thus,
people and communities engaged in trade do not moral duties towards one another
that are similar to those sharing a nation, and/or a community.

Apart from this, to keep the application of principles of Justice to all individuals
Pogge argues that the issue of nationality is that of moral arbitrariness. He states,
„Nationality is just one further deep contingency (like genetic endowment, race,
gender, and social class), one more potential basis of institutional inequalities that are
inescapable and present from birth. Within Rawls's conception, there is no reason to
treat this case differently from the others. And so it would seem that we can justify
our global institutional order only if we can show that the institutional inequalities it
produces tend to optimize (against the backdrop of feasible alternative global
regimes) the worst social position‟ (Pogge 1989: 247). Justice need not apply only to
the institutional order of a bounded state.

Following from the logic, he further argues that, the Rawlsian egalitarian difference
principle which allows social institutions to generate socio-economic inequality only
to the extent that it benefits the worst-off in should apply globally. The global
institutions may generate socioeconomic inequality only insofar as this is maximally
beneficial to the world‟s poorest people. In Pogge‟s conception of global justice, just
as in Rawls‟s Idea of Justice, thus the centrality of institutions is of critical
importance towards realising the difference principle. Rawls propounded that social
institutions be subjected to scrutiny to evaluate whether they are fulfilling the goal
and purpose of justice as listed in the principles. In case where they fail, the
institutions need to be redesigned or new institutions be set-up to leave fewer people
in poverty. This is what justice requires.

Pogge argued that the global institutions that exist are directly violating the rights of
the poor people. While others cite the role of institutions in systemic poverty and
discrimination with a view to excuse the role of rich individuals, Pogge cites them to
27
lay the blame squarely on the rich as the institutions that they control and set the
agendas of. These global institutions have been created by and benefit the wealthier
and powerful nations of the world. Global poverty that exists is not simply a problem
of lack of humanitarian assistance but is a direct result of the workings of the global
institutions that bend the scales in favour of the wealthier countries and violate the
rights of the poor people to decent and fulfilling lives. Thus, richer countries do not
simply have a duty to assist but they have violated the negative rights of poor people
to protect themselves from harm, and are thus morally responsible for the global
poverty and the crippling scale at which it exists. The moral questions should directly
concern the supranational institutions that exist coupled with a push towards creating
desirable relevant institutions that will fulfil the requirements and needs of justice
(Pogge 2002, 2010).

Thus, poverty on a global scale is not simply a problem that can be eradicated by
humanitarian aid and assistance from the rich to the poor. It is a problem where the
negative rights of people are being actively and systemically violated by imposition
of a burdensome world order which serves their interest. Pogge critiques WTO and
uses as an example to illustrate his point. He argues that WTO has worked to ensure
that markets of developing countries are open to the goods and services of the
developed countries. The developed countries resort to protectionism and do not open
their markets in proportion to what they demand from developing countries, thus
enjoying disproportionate benefits of free trade. WTO also serves to impost indirect
trade barriers that negatively impacts the producers and exporters in the developing
countries (Pogge 2008:18). Developing countries had for very long argued against the
protectionist measures that developed countries resort towards the agricultural
produce of developing countries, while at the same time pressurising developing
countries to open up markets for the same products from the rich developed countries.
WTO and its intellectual property rights regime also serveto restrict the access to
essential pharmaceutical goods. The IPR regime has also been criticised for
perversely encouraging bio-piracy by the big corporations which have systemical
implications for the poor farmer.

Pogge use the criteria negative rights of poor people of safety from harm and negative
duties of rich to not harm other people as the normative basis for his position (Pogge
2008: 13-15). Therefore, unlike other theorists like Henry Shue (1980) and Pablo
Gilabert (2005) who argue that wealthier countries and individuals have a positive
duty to provide help to eradicate poverty, Pogge argues that it is the negative duty that
the rich have towards the poor though he does not reject the positive duties and
argues “We do, of course, have positive duties to rescue people from life-threatening
poverty, but it can be misleading to focus on them when more stringent negative
duties are also in play: duties not to expose people to life threatening poverty and
duties to shield them from harms for which we would be actively responsible” (Pogge
2005: 5).

28
Many point out that the oppressive and corrupt governments of poor countries are
also to be blamed for bad governance and lack of political will to do away with
poverty and aspire towards establishing just institutions. Pogge‟s contends that while
there is no denying the role of kleptocrats in exacerbating the systemic causes of
poverty domestically, the role that international institutions play to facilitate
exploitation and support the corrupt national governments for the benefit of the
wealthier nations and individuals cannot be ignored.

Here he also points to the international resource and borrowing privilege that the head
of states have to sell the resources of their countries and borrow loans in the name of
their country and its people. As long as the representative is able to effectively control
and oppress the people of a country, it has the ability to speak on their behalf at
international treaty making. Thus, the privilege is enjoyed equally by those that are
corrupt and are not elected democratically, and plays a causal role in perpetuating
corruption and poverty. These privileges are not accidental but are kept in place for
the benefits of the developed countries and the corrupt elites in the resource rich
developing countries. “Local elites can afford to be oppressive and corrupt, because
with foreign loans and military aid, they can stay in power even without popular
support. And they are often so oppressive and corrupt because it is, in light of the
prevailing extreme international inequalities, far more lucrative for them to cater to
the interest of foreign governments and firms than to those of their impoverished
compatriots” (Pogge 2008: 238-295). This resource privilege effectively ensures that
the natural resources and raw materials flow from developing countries to the
developed countries making them wealthier. The borrowing privilege also works in
favour of the developed countries as the financial institutions housed in these
countries are able to give loans at exorbitant rates of interest which put the developing
countries and their populations in compromised positions and in a debt trap.

Pogge has made two concrete proposals to address the problems that he identifies.
First, he has along with Aidan Hollis proposed a way to incentivise research in
pharmaceutical called the Health Impact Fund (Hollis and Pogge 2008). Secondly, he
has proposed the concept of global resources dividend (Pogge 1998).

Pogge‟s conception has been criticised by several theorists. The most common
criticism is that Pogge‟s causality and assumption with regards to global institutions
causing poverty is cannot be that easily support given the complex nature of global
institutional set. Flowing from this is the criticism that the role of institutions in
causing is not having a baseline against which to measure the result.

In his criticism of Pogge, Alan Patten, raises several points to show why Pogge‟s
causality of establishing the causes of global poverty and arguing for a distributive
principle of justice at global level is flawed. Patten argues that Pogge arrives at a
maximalist conclusion with regards to the duty that rich have towards poor from the
minimalist normative premise of negative duty (Patten 2005:20). According to Patten,
29
Pogge does not clearly demonstrate how the causes that he attributes to international
factors and global institutions are responsible for poverty. For him, Pogge also seeks
to underplay the role and degree that domestic factors play in causing poverty, and to
make his case, Pogge overemphasises the role of international organisations (Patten
2005: 21) To most of Pogge‟s critics, his argument that global institution set
controlled by wealthier countries cause poverty.

The debate about whether or not global institutions are responsible remains unsettled.
However, we see that many theorists like Rawls, Beitz and Pogge have argued about
the form and reach of the idea of global justice and the appropriate context to theories
a justice relationship.

7.5 SUMMARY

Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern about
unfairness. It is sometimes understood as a form of internationalism. Global justice is
a concept which argues that responsibilities and obligation must be distributed among
all the people at the global level. The objective of global justice is to establish a world
which is free from all inequality, discrimination, violence, gender in equality etc.
global justice relates to all the people of the world and all relations and interactions
among them all.

7.6 EXERCISE

1. What is global justice? Explain.

2. Explain Justice in the domestic and national sphere.
3. Explain the views of social egalitarian on global justice.
4. Describe Rawls views on international justice.
5. What is Gloabal distributive justice?

30
7.7 REFERENCE

 Social and Cosmopolitan Liberalism - Beitz – 1999.

 Pogge and Global Justice”, in Andreas Follesdal and Thomas Pogge (eds.),
Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social
Institutions (Dordrecht: Springer).
 Rawls, John (1999a). A Theory of Justice, revised edition (New York: Oxford
University
Press).
 Bellamy, Richard and Mason, Andrew (1993) (eds.) „Political Concepts‟
Manchester, Manchester University Press.
 Knowles, Dudley. (2001) „Political Philosophy‟, London, Routledge.
 Mckinnon, Catriona (2008) (ed.) „Issues in Political Theory‟, New York:
Oxford University Press.
 Swift, Adam. (2001) „Political Philosophy: A Beginners Guide for Student‟s
and Politicians‟, Cambridge, Polity Press.
 La Follett, Hugh (2003) (ed.) „The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethic‟. New
York, Oxford University Press.
 Knowles, Dudley. (2001) „Political Philosophy‟, London, Routledge.

31