POL/C3 (second semester) Subject Teacher: Miss Shothilu Dozo

POLITICAL THEORY- CONCEPTS AND DEBATES

Unit iii: Indispensability of Justice
a) Procedural Justice
b) Distributive Justice
c) Global Justice
Important Issue: Capital punishment

INTRODUCTION
Justice is one of the most discussed concepts of Political Theory. It stands recognized as a
cardinal condition and basic necessity of orderly and harmonious human life in society. People,
State, Government, Society and in fact all human organizations seek to secure justice. It is the
ideal of every civilised society. In defending or opposing the policies, decisions, rules,
regulations and actions of the government or any other organisation, appeals are always made
in the name of Justice. People or any organizations engaged in any struggle, movement or
agitation or a public protest or reform movement for securing their demands and interests,
always raise the slogan: We want Justice." All civil rights movements are basically movements
for securing some Rights and Justice in society. In fact, Justice is the first objective which every
modern liberal democratic state wants to secure for its all people. The Preamble of Constitution
of India defines the securing of social, economic and political Justice for all its people as the
first objective to be secured by the Indian state. Justice can be described as a primary value
which involves a synthesis of several values -Rights, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Peace,
Order, Property, Prosperity, and Development which stand highly valued by the people of each
society. Justice is indispensable for each human society and it stands for just, fair and equitable
distribution of values, rewards, responsibilities and obligations among al. the members of
society. It stands for fairness, righteousness, equality, equity and just order in all spheres of
social life. Justice is an essential component for any civilized society, because if there is no
justice system, then there will be a lot of chaos, insecurity in the state and the conditions of its
‘Might is Right’.

JUSTICE: MEANING & CONCEPT

The term justice implies the quality of being ‘Just’, ‘right’, ‘fair’ or ‘reasonable’. The word
'justice' is derived from the Latin words 'justitia' (to bind, to tie together) and jus (a bond or
tie). Thus, in the concept of justice, various ideals and values are adjusted or coordinated. In
this way, Justice can be defined as a system in which men are tied or joined in a close
relationship. Justice seeks to harmonise different values and to organize upon it all human
relationships. Justice demands the regulation of the selfish actions of people as well as the
securing of a fair distribution of resources, rewards and benefits, equal treatment of equals,
proportionate and just rewards for all and harmony between individual interests and the
interests of the society.
 It is a dynamic idea because our realization of the absolute truth is a continuous process. Our
progress in this direction depends on the development of our social consciousness, so that what
was regarded as just some centuries ago is not so today. The true meaning of justice should
therefore be determined in light of the prevalent social consciousness.
The meaning of justice is not limited only to law and legal processes, but in the modern era,
the notion of justice has become very widespread and its representation has started to be
expressed in various forms. Where the traditional approach to justice was largely conservative,
the modern approach embodies a progressive idea. Traditional view required the individual to
conform to the existing social order; modern view of justice seeks to transform the society itself
for the realization of certain human values. In short, the traditional view of justice has given
way to the modern idea of social justice. Social justice is the voice of the oppressed, and the
underprivileged against the oppressive and exploitative practices. Social justice mainly seeks
to improve the social, economic and political condition of the deprived /weaker sections of the
society, who have been deprived of basic amenities and opportunities of life for generations so
that those classes join the mainstream of the nation and make their valuable contribution in
nation building. Therefore, in today's era, the main problem of justice is that what should be
the proper basis for sharing of goods, services, opportunities, benefits, power and honor among
different classes or individuals within social life? In fact, in the modern era, the development
of democratic institutions and values of life has increased the people's aspirations, the direct
and indirect reflection of which is expressed in our modern view of justice.
Justice has been defined differently by different persons. In facts, its meaning has been
changing from time to time.
Three Definitions of Justice
1. "Justice means to distribute the due share to everybody." -Salmond
2. “Justice protects the rights of the individual as well as the order of society"-Dr. Raphael
3. "Justice consists in a system of understandings and procedures through which each is
accorded what is agreed upon as fair." -C.E. Marriam

In other words, Justice stands for harmony among all the people, orderly living and securing
of rights of all in a just and fair way. Justice is inseparably linked with other values-rights,
liberty, equality and property. What makes a society characterised by Justice is the right or fair
ordering of human relations in which each person gets his due rights and duties as well as due
rewards and punishments. It stands for making adjustments in human relations in respect of
these values. Justice involves the securing of a due and proper balance in all areas of human
relations in society. It means just distribution - fair and proportionate apportionment of rewards
or punishment. In a society characterized by justice, each person enjoys a respectful, rightful,
active and fair place in society.
To sum up, we can say that Justice means a fair and just allocation of goods, services,
opportunities, rewards, benefits, obligations, burdens and penalties among members.
Development of the Concept of Justice
We have discussed above that defining justice is a difficult task. Despite this, prominent
political thinkers and philosophers in various periods have continuously tried to give a definite
definition to the word justice. Greek philosophers have considered the concept of justice to be
related to social order. Although the concept of justice and the meaning of justice were different
for nations with democratic and non-democratic governance, it was related to social order for
both. Following are the views of various scholars regarding justice:
PLATO'S THEORY OF JUSTICE
It would be significant to observe at the outset that the modern concept of justice is different
from the traditional concept. A typical example of the traditional approach to the problem of
justice is provided by Plato's theory of justice
Plato emphasized on the moral element of justice by saying that justice meant performance of
one’s own duty with all abilities and capability towards the social whole. Plato therefore
prescribes different duties for different classes of citizens whose fulfilment would be
instrumental in building up a just social order. Justice results from each element in society
doing its appropriate task, doing it well and doing it only. In order to achieve perfect harmony
which symbolizes justice, it is imperative that reason must rule within the man as well as within
the state.
So, in a just or ideal state, the reins of government shall remain in the hands of a class of
philosopher-kings who a supposed to be the living embodiments of wisdom, whereas material
production and military defence shall be entrusted to the producer and warrior classes
respectively.
ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF JUSTICE
While Plato's theory of justice represents the radical view in that it sought to change the existing
social order of his times, Aristotle's theory of justice embodies the conservative view in favour
of maintaining the existing order. In Aristotle's view, justice was concerned with the regulation
of human relations. Aristotle held the view that justice meant equal share to the equal and
unequal share to the unequal, it is distributing power and position proportional to the worth or
contribution of the individual.

The modern idea of justice implies its legal, political, social and economic dimensions.

Dimensions of Justice:
1. LEGAL JUSTICE
Justice and Law are very intimately related. Law is the means to establish justice in society.
The state establishes justice in society by its authority, and law is the manifestation of this
authority. Law defines and determines justice. It protects and lends justice a reality. In simple
words it can be said, Legal Justice stands for rule of law.
Legal justice has two dimensions-the formulation of just laws and justice according to the laws.
While making laws, the will of the rulers is not to be imposed upon the ruled. Laws should be
based on public opinion and public needs. Social values, morality, conventions, the idea of just
and unjust must be always kept in view. When the laws do not meet the social values and rules
of morality, citizens neither really accept nor abide by laws. In this situation, the enforcement
of laws becomes a problem. Laws are just only when these are accepted not out of fear of
external power but when inspired by internal feeling for the laws being good, just and
reasonable.
Legal Justice, means rule of law and not rule of any person. It includes two things: that all men
are equal before law, and that law is equally applicable to all. It provides legal security to all.
Law does not discriminate between the rich and the poor. Objective and due dispensation of
justice by the courts of law is an essential ingredient of legal justice. The legal procedure has
to be simple, quick, fair, inexpensive and efficient. There should be effective machinery for
preventing unlawful actions.

2). POLITICAL JUSTICE

Political justice means giving equal political rights and opportunities to all citizens to take part
in the political process of the country. Citizens should have their political rights without any
discrimination on the basis of religion, colour, caste, creed, sex, birth or status. Political rights
of citizens include the right to vote (universal adult franchise), right to hold public office, right
to contest elections, rights to form associations and unions etc
Political Justice also means that every citizen should have the right to express his views freely
in his speeches or writings and that all citizens should have the right to criticise the government
for its policies and actions. It also means the right and opportunity to exercise power, not on
the basis of force but on the basis of public opinion. Thus, a constitutional government is an
essential ingredient of political justice.
In simple words, Political Justice involves the concept of free and equal opportunities for all
for participation in the political process. The struggle for power i.e. political competition should
be free, orderly and fair. Exercise of political power should be in the interest of the society as
a whole and not in the interest of the ruling group/party.
Enjoyment of equal political rights by all is the most essential condition of Political Justice.

3). SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social justice is taken to mean that all people in the society are equal and there should be no
discrimination on any basis. It refers to a concept that seeks to prevent discrimination on the
basis of birth, caste, religion, gender so that the national resources and wealth can be distributed
on a just basis.
Modern liberal thinkers define social justice as the attempt to reconstruct the social order in
accordance with moral principles. Attempts are to be continuously made to rectify social
injustice. All courts are inclined to change their judicial approach from time to time to suit
public needs. In common parlance, the term social justice is usually used to comprehend all the
three aspects of justice in society-social, economic, political.
Absence of special privilege in society, absence of discrimination on the basis of caste, colour,
creed, religion, race, sex, etc. and absence of widespread economic inequalities are the
imperative conditions of social justice.
Along with it, fair and just system of distribution of rewards, benefits, services, special
protection for weaker sections, etc are essential attributes of social justice.

4). Economic Justice

Economic justice is closely related to social justice because economic system is always an
integral part of the social system. Liberal ideology emphasizes on open competition as just and
support private property. On the other hand, the socialists and Marxists seek to establish
complete control of the state upon the economic system. They oppose private property.
Whatever the difference in ideology, one thing is clear, and it is that all citizens must have the
basic necessities of life.
It demands that all citizens should have adequate opportunities to earn their livelihood and get
fair wages so as to enable them to satisfy their needs. The state should provide them economic
security through illness, old age, and in the event of disability.
It means the end of economic exploitation, there should be fair and equitable distribution of
wealth and resources of the country among the people. The gap between the rich and the poor
should not be glaring and deep. The fruits of prosperity must reach all people as equal m embers
of the society.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND DISTRIBUTIVE/ SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE

Procedural Justice:
Contemporary debate on the nature of justice focusses on the discrimination between
procedural justice and substantive justice or distributive justice which largely coincides with
the essence of social justice.
Champions of procedural justice hold that the method or procedure for allocation of social
advantages i.e., goods and services, opportunities and benefits, powers and honours should be
just and fair, then its outcome will automatically be accepted as just. Who gets what is not a
matter of dispute. In other words, the allocation resulting from a just procedure must be treated
as just. In this concept the process is emphasized, not the result. Thus, procedural justice means
formal or legal justice. Procedural justice stands for: when the procedures are just the outcome
is always just.
When a trail in court is held in accordance with laid down procedures, the decision of the case
is always just. It stands for the principle of fair equality which means that law should be made
and applied impartially without discrimination on any ground. (A market economy or a
capitalist economy is considered important in procedural justice.)
The notion of procedural justice is closely related to the tradition of liberalism. According to
this viewpoint, the function of justice is to regulate the mutual relations between individuals
and groups. Hence, the quest for justice should aim at evolving reasonable rules which should
be applied impartially to all categories. Freedom of contract is the mainstay of procedural
justice. It requires the state to ensure that no individual or group would oppress another by
force or fraud. Using the analogy of race, champions of procedural justice insist on laying down
rules of the game; it hardly matters as to who wins or loses in the race.
As Norman Barry An Introduction to Modern Political Theory; 1989) has aptly illustrated:
"Procedural justice is exemplified in competitions, such as races. A fair race is not one in which
the person who wins morally deserves to win but one in which there is no cheating, nobody
jumps the gun or has an unfair advantage through the use of drugs."
Accordingly, procedural justice treats the rules of market economy as the model rules of human
behaviour. It holds that the market mechanism creates necessary conditions for the most
efficient use of resources; any artificial social policy designed to disturb this process will lead
to the wastage of the rare material and human resources.
The exponents of procedural justice include Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), F.A. Hayek (1899-
1992), Milton Friedman (1912-2006), and Robert Nozick (1938-2002). Besides, John Rawls
(1921-2002) has sought to accommodate the requirements of substantive justice or social
justice in his well-drawn scheme of procedural justice.
Procedural justice opposes discrimination between human beings on grounds of caste, creed,
sex, race, region, language and culture, etc. and accepts equal dignity and moral worth of all
human beings. In this respect far. is a progressive idea.
But it stretches the principle of open competition too far Thus, Spencer went to the extent of
suggesting that the state should not extend any help to the handicapped and let the weakest go
to the wall. Spencer argued that if the state gives any support to the incapable, the imprudent
and the weak, it would amount to depriving the capable, the prudent and the strong of their
genuine share, and thereby impeding social progress.
Spencer's social philosophy implies applying Darwin's principle of 'natural selection' and
'survival of the fittest to the realm of human relations. It obliterates the distinction between
rules of the animal world and those of civil society.
Hayek suggested that the state should positively promote competition in society and ensure
that the market is not reduced to an instrument of distributive justice.
Friedman eulogized competitive capitalism as an essential condition of freedom and wanted
government to move out of all welfare and regulatory functions.
Nozick contended that the state has no authority to redistribute the property of its citizens who
were originally its clients.
C.B. Macpherson (1911-87) has rightly pointed out that the free market society destroys the
creative freedom of human beings who are constrained to employ their talents, skills and
energies to cater to the needs of the market-place instead of pursuing self-appointed goals.
In contrast, the idea of substantive justice corresponds to the philosophy of socialism. It holds
that the test of justice in society consists in ascertaining whether the poor and the
underprivileged have adequate opportunity to improve their lot. It demands that the
opportunities of self-development should be progressively extended to the underprivileged and
disadvantaged sections of society,
Critics of procedural justice are of the view that the biggest mistake of this judicial system is
that they have presented the concept of justice in the context of individualism, not in terms of
human social beings. The position of different individuals in society is abnormal. Therefore, in
an asymmetric society, the procedural form of justice proves inconsistent.

Distributive Justice/Substantive Justice

Supporters of Substantive Justice believe that requirements of Justice cannot be entirely met
by the creation and application of procedural rules. Justice stands for ensuring a fair and just
distribution of values among all the people through just and reasonable decisions and laws.
Substantive/ Distributive Justice stands for just distribution and allocation of social advantages
and resources among various sections of society. For distributive justice, only just procedure
cannot lead to just distribution of social advantages, rewards, benefits, and obligations. Often
contrasted with procedural justice which lay emphasis on just process, distributive justice
concentrates on outcomes. The procedure of allocation is secondary, which can be adjusted
suitably to meet the requirements of just distribution. What is of primary importance is a just,
fair and reasonable allocation or distribution of social advantages among all the people of
society. The procedures can be adjusted for meeting the primary objective of providing fair and
just goods, services, advantages, rewards, benefits to the people. The contents of law have to
be just and reasonable and only then can justice be secured.
Types of distributive norms
Five types of distributive norm are defined by D. R. Forsyth are:
(i). Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an equal share of
the rewards/costs. Equality supports that someone who contributes 20% of the group's
resources should receive as much as someone who contributes 60%.
(ii) Equity: Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs. Therefore, an individual
who has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from
the group than someone who has contributed very little. Members of large groups prefer to
base allocations of rewards and costs on equity
(iii) Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive less
than those in lower level positions.
(iv) Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those
needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them,
regardless of their input.
(v) Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share their resources with those
who have less.
(Unlike procedural justice, the idea of substantial justice or social justice is closely associated
with Marxism and Socialism.) All defenders of Socialism uphold the concept of Substantive
Justice. It holds that the test of justice in society consists in ascertaining whether the poor and
the underprivileged have adequate opportunity to improve their lot. It demands that the
opportunities of self-development should be progressively extended to the underprivileged and
disadvantaged sections of society.
They advocate the view that social life cannot be made free from inequalities, injustices and
exploitations without suitably transforming socio-economic relations through a fair, equitable
and just-distribution of benefits and resources. Human equality, dignity and worth can be
ensured by securing socio-economic reconstruction and development through the making and
implementation of just fair and needed laws and decisions. In a society, there will always, be
the concentration of wealth or resources and inequalities. Now, there is a role of state to device
a mechanism, which will constantly, re-distribute the concentration of wealth and resources,
and to ensure that everyone should have maximum equality of opportunity. If such, a difference
is required, then, it should be for the least disadvantaged people.
The state must actively work for securing a just synthesis of liberty, equality, and property in
a substantive way. This naturally justifies and necessitates state action for the securing of social
economic, educational and cultural health and security, particularly for the weaker /
disadvantaged people. In short, it can be said that the goal of substantial justice is that the
benefits of social development should not be confined in the hands of a select few, but it should
be arranged to bring them to the weak, deprived and disadvantaged level in the society.
Substantive Justice holds that Justice consists in ensuring that all sections of society,
particularly, the weaker and disadvantaged sections should get just and adequate goods,
services, benefits and opportunities for development. The law must be fair and just in content.
The procedure of law-making must cater to this need "Just laws do not mean laws made by just
procedures, these have to be just in content.” Substantive Justice stands for concrete justice.
Analysed in this way, the meaning of Substantive Justice comes very close to Distributive
Justice.
Difference between Procedural Justice and Substantive Justice
The difference between Procedural Justice and Substantive Justice virtually boils down to the
fact that while the former stands for just procedures and upholds fair and open competition, the
latter upholds the principle of fair and just distribution of benefits /advantages/resources among
all sections of society through the making and implementation of necessary and good laws and
policies. Each has its own merit.

JOHN RAWLS' THEORY OF JUSTICE

Rawls: Justice as fairness
In Theory of Justice (1971) Rawls' attempts to formulate a philosophy of justice and a
theoretical program for establishing political structures designed to preserve social justice and
individual liberty. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls begins with the statement that, "Justice is the
first virtue of social institution," meaning that a good society is one structured according to
principals of justice. The idea at the heart of Rawls’ theory of justice, which he calls justice as
fairness, are the original position and veil of ignorance.
Rawls' theory of justice aims to constitute a system to ensure the fair distribution of primary
social goods. "All social values-liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of
self-respect- are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these
values is to everyone's advantage". The institutions established for the fair distribution of
primary social goods are the subjects of justice.
Rawls proposes to develop a theory of justice by revising the social contract tradition of
theorizing about justice associated with the 17th and 18th century writers John Locke, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. Rawls imagines a hypothetical situation to determine
the principles of justice. To identify fairness, Rawls develops two important concepts: the
original position and the veil of ignorance. Rawls believes that the way to find out which
principles of justice is fair is to think about what principles would be chosen by people who do
not know how they are going to be affected by them. He thus imagines people choosing
principles in the original position behind a veil of ignorance. This is a thought experiment.
The original position is a hypothetical situation. Among the essential features of this situation
is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone
know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and
the like. Depriving people of particularizing knowledge means they will choose fair principles
rather than allowing that knowledge to bias the choice of principles in their own interests.
There are two kinds of things that the parties to this hypothetical contract don’t know. First
they are ignorant of their talents (natural endowments) and social position. Second, they don’t
know their conception of good.
Fairness is achieved through the veil of ignorance, an imagined device where the people
choosing the basic structure of society ("deliberators') have morally arbitrary features hidden
from them: since they have no knowledge of these features, any decision they make can't be
biased in their own favour.
The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is
advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or
the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to
design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a
fair agreement or bargain.
Rawls elaborates his ideas of justice as fairness in his two principles which he thinks people
behind the veil of ignorance would choose:
1. Each person is to have an equal right to extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar
liberty for others.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are
(a) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
(b)to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged (The Difference Principle).
Taken together, it means that a just society will first and foremost give to each member the
same set of basic liberties or rights- freedom of expression, of religion, association, of
occupation, right to representative government etc.
Then, if there are social and economic inequalities, it will make sure that all the citizens enjoy
equality of opportunity in the process by which they come to achieve and avoid the unequally
rewarded positions. This entails that society must provide all citizens with the basic means
necessary to participate in such competition, including appropriate education and health care.
Finally, the most important part of Rawls's second principle of justice is the difference
Principle. It mandates that beyond achieving fair equality of opportunity, a just society must
be organised so that any social and economic inequalities are to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged. Inequality is only permissible if it will benefit the least advantaged. The difference
principle addresses the problem of inequalities due to talents, not by trying to equalise
expectation across talent level directly, but by requiring that whatever benefit accrue to the
more talented do so in a manner that maximally benefits the least advantaged.
Critical Assessment
Rawls' theory of justice has given rise to numerous debates in contemporary political
philosophy. Some of the major criticisms are stated below:
1. Communitarian critique is one of the most prominent critiques of Rawls' theory of justice.
It is basically an attack on the universal aspect of Rawlsian idea of justice. For example,
Michael Walzer in his book 'Spheres of Justice' give the counterargument to Rawls'
hypothetical individualistic aspects. Walzer asks that since the Rawlsian veil of ignorance
assumes individual out of their social context then how can those decisions be applied to real
life situations in actual social contexts? People in real life take decisions on the basis of what
they understand to be good. The idea of good, according to Walzer, could not be shaped on the
basis of individual account but it is always shaped by the community and their beliefs and
cultural and social practices. Thus, any idea of good would be communal in character.
2. Marxists generally argue that any argument put forwarded about justice in capitalist system
just aims to serve for the interest of dominant class. They argue that what makes Rawls’ Theory
of Justice unjust is based on his argument that social and economic inequalities are inevitable.
That is, Rawls claims that economic and social inequalities are natural, which justifies the
existing inequalities.
3. Feminists have also criticized Rawls theory of justice by saying that his theory gives no
importance to women. Feminists such as Carol Pateman points out that in his scheme, it is only
the heads of households-assumed to be men- who come together and agree to accept the
principles of justice, thereby leaving women out. She labels Rawls contract as being
patriarchal.
4. Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on
liberty. For instance, the Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation to the poor,
and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just
holdings.
5. Advocates of strict equality also argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference
Principle are unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged.
6. Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles
could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well off.
7. There is also the difficulty in applying the theory to practice. It is difficult if not impossible
for people to place themselves under the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to
formulate what conduct would be required of them. Some question whether or not people are
rational enough to assume the veil of ignorance and operate under the two principles.

GLOBAL JUSTICE
Introduction:
From the beginning of the modern era to the entire period of the 21st century, political thinkers
who were interested in the concept of justice mainly considered only national issues and
problems within the nation. That is, how the state should treat its citizens and what and how
the citizens should interact. Justice among individuals between mutual sovereign states or
across borders was a secondary subject, which he had left to theorists of international relations.
After 1980, global justice became an important issue of contemporary political philosophy.
The notion of global justice revolves primarily around three related issues of distributive
justice, moral universality and major financial institutions. The issue of distributive justice
relates to the equitable process on the current distribution of wealth, prosperity and resources.
If there is poverty in our country, is it the duty of the capitalists to help the poor or does the
spirit of help stop coming to charity and charity or is it so important from moral point of view.
Also, will global politics and economic institutions like the United Nations, World Bank,
International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, International Non-Governmental
Organization, Multinational Corporations and International Courts be the best in achieving the
ideal of global justice. Till now issues like freedom, equality, justice and rights were within the
jurisdiction of nation-states within a certain land boundary. But the notion of globalization
presents an open challenge to these traditional assumptions. The biggest question that arises
today is whether the rich countries of the west should concentrate on the neglected sections,
cultures, illusions of developing and underdeveloped countries or should restrict themselves
only to the exploitation of natural and human resources.
The concept of Global Justice has been currently getting as increasing attention of the political
theorists, the civil society, human rights activists/ groups and several NGOs. It seeks to explain
Justice on a global scale. It stands for fair and equitable distributions of responsibilities and
obligations among the people living in all parts of the world. In its nature, it is more
philosophical than the traditional concept of Justice which stands for elimination of socio-
economic inequalities and promotion of a fair and equitable distribution of al responsibilities,
obligations, benefits and rewards among all the people of the state.
Concept of Global Justice and the Traditional Concept of Justice
The concept of Global Justice involves a marked extension of the concept of Justice to the
global sphere. It stands for fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities and obligations for
securing fair and equitable distribution of benefits of development and rewards among all the
people of the world irrespective of their nationalities or citizenships. It rests on the universal
values of human equality, human dignity, human worth, human personality, human
development, peace, prosperity, and fraternity of all the people of the world.
The traditional concept of Justice is a state-specific concept which stands for a system of fair
and equitable distribution of obligations, responsibilities, rewards and jobs among the people
of a state. It is based on the premise that people have obligations of Justice only towards one
and other with whom they live together under a common constitution and who are recognized
as members of their nation. In the recent past (Before the emergence of the concept of Global
Justice) almost all political philosophers, like David Miller, used to uphold the view that
obligations apply only to the people living together as parts of one nation/nation-state.
The nation-state being a demographic territorial sovereign state has the responsibility to secure
social, economic and political Justice for all its citizens. The traditional concept of Justice has
been a state-specific concept of Justice. While theorizing the concept of Justice, most of the
political philosophers still continue to focus their attention on the theory of Justice as a theory
of Justice within a state.
However, such a view of Justice is held to be partial and narrow by several contemporary
theorists who advocate that every human being living in any state or in any part of the globe,
has the responsibility and obligation to do the most good to every other human being living in
the world. They conceptualise Justice as Global Justice.
WHAT IS GLOBAL JUSTICE?

The concept of Global Justice relates to all the people of the world and stands for fair and
equitable distribution of responsibilities and obligations among all the people living in all parts
of the globe. Its protagonists hold that in contemporary times, the world is an individual centric
world. Relations and interactions among the people of the world and the presence of a large
number of supra-national economic, political and cultural organizations and institutions- the
United Nations, World Bank, IMF, International and regional agencies and organizations,
several global NGOs and the global civil society working in the present era/ environment of
globalization of human relations, together reflect the existence of a widespread process of
people to people relations and interactions across all state borders and boundaries. The people
of the world live together and enjoy universally accepted equal Human Rights and Freedoms.
They owe obligations and responsibilities towards each other. They are the subjects of
International Law. Global Justice relates to all the people of the world, the whole Humanity.
Such a thinking and realization has been behind the emergence and growing popularity of the
concept of Global Justice.
The objective of Global Justice to secure a better World- a world free from inequalities in all
parts of the world and a world free from discrimination exploitation, violence, wars, violations
of human and rights, gender inequalities, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, epidemics, environmental
pollution and global warming. The contemporary theorist of Global Justice, conceptualize and
advocate it as: 'What we all owe to each other in the whole World.'
Distinction between Global Justice and International Justice
A subtle distinction is made between the notions of International Justice and Global Justice. In
the former nation or nation-state in taken to be the central entity of concern and Justice among
nations/ states is the focus. Equitable and fair distribution of responsibilities and obligations
among nations/nation- states constitute the core feature of International Justice. It focuses on
what states or nations owe to each other.
By contrast, the domain of Global Justice involves Justice among the human beings living in
al' parts of the globe. It relates to what the people of the world owe to each other. Global Justice
is people specific and not state/nation specific. The primary concern of Global Justice is the
issue of fairness in relations among the people of the world. It is concerned with issue of: How
to promote fair and equitable socio-economic responsibilities, obligations and benefits of
socio-economic development among all human beings living in all parts of the world. In the
contemporary era of globalization, involving the free flow of people goods, services and
knowledge, as well as a firm faith in equal human rights of all, several different kinds of
interactions are not defined or circumscribed by the state membership and yet can importantly
affect most fundamental interests of human beings and their groups, associations and
organizations, which are supranational or transnational. Global Justice relates to all the people
of the world and all relations and interactions among them all.
SCOPE OF GLOBAL JUSTICE

In general, the concept of Global Justice gives an account of what is Justice on the global scale
and includes within its scope the following components.
(a) Identifying the important problems of Global Justice and positing solutions to each
identified problem.
(b) Identifying who might have responsibilities in addressing the identified problems.
(c) What can be done by whom and what ought to be done for solving or overcoming each
problem.
(d) Concept of Global Justice helps us to understand our world better and also our
responsibilities and obligations towards it.
(e) It provides us information about the problems being faced by our world and in the process
guides us in finding solutions to these
(f) It greatly helps us in formulating necessary global policies for securing Global Justice i.e. a
fair and equitable distribution of responsibilities and obligations among all the people of the
world.
As such, Global Justice can enable the whole humankind to comprehensively and effectively
face all the challenges and problems being faced by the whole world, as well as to formulate
policies and goals for overcoming these. The formulation and achieving of Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and now Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been
guided by the concept of Global Justice.
There are considerable misconceptions among people in this context whether global justice is
a boon or a bane. Amartya Sen is of the opinion that one must think about its need while paying
attention to its good and evils. In place of fair justice and more fair distribution of opportunities
under global justice, a revised global system should be attempted. Considering the relationship
between poverty alleviation and human rights, Sen is of the view that economic progress cannot
take place as long as it is not linked to civil liberties i.e. freedom of thought, expression and
assembly.
The Human Development Report (1999) of the UNDP presents ideas in the context of
achieving global justice. For example, there should be a global code of conduct for international
corporations so that the laws related to environment and labor can be followed. New laws
should be introduced for the World Trade Organization, including anti-monopoly power so that
they prevent multinational corporations from exercising their control over industries. Global
central banks help poor countries in lending and regulate the financial market. Many NGOs are
trying to improve the global economy, but this can only be possible if these institutions leave
the dictatorial attitude and work at the democratic level. Similarly, those states that want to join
the principles of distributive justice should be ready to sacrifice their sovereignty.
Thus, it can be said that in the process of globalization, justice has been pushed out of the
boundaries of nation-states to the boundaries of the international arena. The way in which the
nation-states provide justice to their citizens, they should be encouraged, it is easy to be happy
but the question of how to achieve global justice is very difficult. The main reason for this may
also be that global justice requires social, economic and political reforms. Under which it is
necessary to increase the share in developing international economic policy formulation of
developing countries. Apart from the exchange of objects, there is a need for the exchange of
intellectual thoughts. Like civil rights, their major issues are also global, such as human rights
abuse, environmental degradation and AIDS etc. In fact, global justice is our common
responsibility. In such a situation, if the nation-state renounces its sovereignty, there will surely
be a possibility of allocation of goods.
Nayef Al-Rodham has rightly observed "Human well-being is dependent on preservation
and promotion of human dignity and human dignity is directly linked to Global Justice."
He also suggests means for securing Global Justice-Dialogue, effective representation of
all at the global level, multilateralism, Representative global decision-making, fair
treatment for all, empathy, accountability, transparency and adherence to rules of
International Law and rules of Humanitarian International Law during a war".

Conclusion
On the basis of the above discussion, we can say that there has been a lack of an acceptable
definition of uniformity and universality of justice. Justice has been defined in different ways
in different social systems in different time periods. In this chapter, we have understood the
various dimensions of justice. Simultaneously we read about John Rawls's theory of justice.
Then we understood the critical views of various scholars on Rawls's theory of justice. We
have also learned about global justice in this chapter that in this era of globalization, the concept
of justice has been found to expand internationally by widening the boundary of the nation-
state, in which the process of globalization is playing an important role.

ISSUE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the state-sanctioned killing of a person
as punishment for a crime. The sentence ordering that someone is punished with the death
penalty is called a death sentence, and the act of carrying out such a sentence is known as
execution. A person awaiting their execution is condemned and is on “death row”. Crimes that
are punishable by death are known as capital crimes, capital offences, capital felonies, and vary
depending on the jurisdiction, but commonly include serious crime, against the person on
such as murder, mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child sexual abuse,
terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, along with crimes against the
state such as attempting to overthrow government, treason, sedition. piracy, and aircraft
hijacking. Also, in some cases, acts of aggravated robbery and kidnapping, in addition to drug
trafficking, drug dealing, and drug possession, are capital crimes or enhancements.
Today the issue of capital punishment, is one of the most controversial and currently debated
topics in the world.
The list of nations that have abolished or suspended capital punishment is growing. Data from
Amnesty International states that at the end of 2021, 108 countries (and growing) had abolished
the death penalty in law for all crimes, 28 countries had effectively abolished the death penalty
by not executing anyone in the past 10 years, and 55 countries still retained the death penalty
for ordinary crimes.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, more than 70% of the world's countries
have abolished capital punishment in law or practice. As of July 2022, the most recent countries
to abolish capital punishment were Kazakhstan and Papua New Guinea (in 2021)
Although most nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population
live in countries where the death penalty is retained, such as China, India, the United States,
Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, as well as in Japan and
Taiwan.
Capital punishment is controversial in several countries and states, and positions can vary
within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union (EU), Article 2 of
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital
punishment. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, throughout the years from
2007 to 2018, seven non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions,
with a view to eventual abolition.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Let us discus main arguments for and against Capital Punishment.
Arguments in support of Continuance of Capital Punishment
a) Proponents of the death penalty often view it as an unpleasant, but necessary way to keep
society safe from those who commit the most heinous crimes. They justify its continuance as
a deterrent against attempts at violation of the right to life of the people by criminals.
b) Supporters of death penalty also argue that Capital Punishment is awarded by the courts only
after free and fair trial in which the accused person is always given the fullest opportunity or
rather some standard opportunities to defend himself. Usually, Death Penalty is awarded and
executed only in the rarest of the rare cases. As such, Capital Punishment need not be abolished.
It has to remain in the penal code as a deterrent punishment and the courts must continue to
award it to criminals found guilty of wilful and planned violation of the right of life of another
fellow citizen or some citizens.
c) Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have
taken the right to life of another person have forfeited their own right to life.
d) Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it is necessary to act as a potent deterrent
against potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient
restraint.
e) Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and
procedures that only those who are really deserving of death are executed. Presently, Capital
Punishment is awarded by the courts only in a rarest of the rare cases.
f) those in favour of the death penalty also argue that awarding of life sentence without parole
can be equally, if not more, expensive and harsh than the execution of a death penalty.
g) capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing convicted
murderers, it will deter (prevent) murderers from killing people in future and also provides
closure for the families of the victims.
On the basis of all these arguments, the supporters of the retention/continuation of Capital
punishment in the penal code of state support their view.

Arguments against Capital punishment

a) Capital Punishment is held to be inhuman, immoral and even an illegal act of the state which
involves a planned execution of a persons who stand convicted by the courts of law as a
criminal and sentenced to death as a punishment for his crimes. A large number of social
scientists and several jurists strongly advocate the need for elimination of Capital Punishment.
They point out that it does not lower homicide rates and feel the ends cannot justify the
means—especially when so many individuals are wrongly convicted.
b) Opponents of the death penalty have been currently opposing the awarding of death penalty
by the courts of law and often equate it with murder. They argue that, by legitimizing the very
behaviour that the law seeks to repress- killing, capital punishment is counterproductive in the
moral message it conveys.
c) Abolitionists (those who favour abolition of capital punishment) claim Death Penalty
constitutes a violation of Human Rights, in, particularly, the Right to life, even the right to
repent and reform of a human being.
d) those against death penalty urge that when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is
immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done.
e) they argue that every criminal has a future and can get reformed. There is available a better
alternative for punishing a criminal in the form life sentence without parole.
f) Death Penalty is irreversible.
g) Because errors are inevitable even in a well run criminal justice system, some people will
be executed for crimes they did not commit. At times, some persons given death penalties are
later on formed to innocent. In this case neither the concerned person nor his family can be
compensated. Death Penalty puts innocent life to risk.
h) Death Penalty has been used for several hundred years and yet it has failed to act as an
effective deterrent against heinous crimes.
i) At times, while awarding and executing death penalty several factors race, religion, belief,
colour and political ideology, even gender play a part.
j) Finally, abolitionists argue that because the appeal process for death sentences is prolonged,
those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainity about
their fate.
On the basis of all these arguments a large number of persons advocate the abolition of Capital
Punishment.
When we compare the arguments for and against Capital Punishment, we find that the balance
is favour of abolition of Capital Punishment. Around 85% states 162/200 have abolished it.
Empirically speaking the world public opinion now supports the case for the abolition of Death
Penalty.
The abolition movement
Under the influence of the European Enlightenment, in the latter part of the 18t century there
began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. Until that time a very wide range
of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death though the punishment
was not always enforced, in part because juries tended to acquit defendants against the evidence
in minor cases. In 1794 the U.S. state of Pennsylvania became the first jurisdiction to restrict
the death penalty to first-degree murder, and in 1846 the state of Michigan abolished capital
punishment for all murders and other common crimes.
In 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish capital punishment for all crime,
including serious offenses against the state (e.g., treason and military offenses in time of war).
San Marino was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, doing so in1865; by
the early 20th century several other countries, including the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, and Italy, had followed suit (though it was reintroduced in Italy under the fascist
regime of Benito Mussolini. By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death
penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against
the state or the military code.)
During the last third of the 20th century, the number of abolitionist countries increased more
than threefold. These countries, together with those that are "de facto" abolitionist_ i.e., those
in which capital punishment is legal but not exercised- now represent more than half the
countries of the world. One reason for the significant increase in the number of abolitionist
states was that the abolition movement was successful in making capital punishment an
international human rights issue, whereas formerly it had been regarded as solely an internal
matter for the countries concerned.
In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that, "in order fully to
guarantee the right to life, provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," called
for restricting the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a
view toward abolishing it altogether. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly
in 1977. Optional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (1983) and to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) have been established, under which
countries party to the convention and the covenant undertake not to carry out executions. The
Council of Europe (1994) and the EU (1998) established as a condition of membership in their
organizations the requirement that prospective member countries suspend executions and
commit themselves to abolition. This decision had a remarkable impact on the countries of
central and eastern Europe, prompting several of them-es: the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia- to abolish capital punishment.
In the 1990s many. African countries- including Angola, Mozambique, Namibia- abolished
capital punishment, though most African countries retained it. In South Africa, which formerly
had one of the world's highest execution rates, capital punished was outlawed in 1995 by the
Constitutional Court, which declared that it was incompatible with the prohibition against
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and with "a human rights culture."