global social justice essay

150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples

⭐ top 10 social justice issues to write about, 🏆 best social justice topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ simple & easy social justice essay titles, 📌 most interesting social justice topics to write about, 👍 good social justice research topics, ❓ research questions about social justice.

Social justice essays are an excellent tool for demonstrating your awareness of the current issues in society.

Inequality in society should be addressed, and social justice advocates are at the forefront of such initiatives. Everyone should be able to achieve their goals and dreams if they put in the effort, assuming of course that reaching that target is at all possible.

To that end, you should ask various social justice essay questions and investigate different situations, particularly those that surround marginalized communities.

While the civil rights movement has succeeded in eliminating discriminatory policies and gender segregation, people should remain vigilant so that inequality again.

There are many topics you can discuss in your essay, but is better to focus on something specific and conduct a detailed investigation. It is easy to take some examples of data that shows a situation that seems unequal and declare that the system is flawed.

However, the data may be inaccurate, and the causes may be different from what you initially perceive them to be. Many fields will be too small for statistic laws to apply, and so there will be a temporary prevalence of people with a specific trait.

Declarations of premature conclusions and calls to action based on these conjectures are not productive and will generally lead to harm.

Be sure to consider evidence from both sides when discussing the topic of injustice, especially in its sensitive applications.

The case of police officers and the racial disparity in arrests is a prominent example, as there is significant disagreement, and neither side can be considered entirely correct.

At other times, unequal treatments may be explained by racial and gender differences without the application of discriminatory practices, particularly with regards to cultural practices.

The importance of justice is above debate, but it is not always about declaring one side correct while the other is wrong and at fault. Humanity operates best when it is unified and follows the same purpose of fairness.

Lastly, try to avoid confusing equality with equity, as the two social justice essay topics are significantly different. The former involves similar starting conditions and opportunities for all people, though they will likely achieve varying successes in life.

The latter means equality of outcomes, meaning that the unsuccessful receive support, which logically has to come at the expense of those who succeed.

You may support either position, with equality being a more traditional concept that seems logical to many people and equity being considered effective at improving the conditions of marginalized communities. However, make your position clear, as the difference is critical and informs your personal concept of social justice.

Here are some additional tips for your paper:

• Separate the points you make in your essay with social justice essay titles. These titles will help the reader navigate the paper and understand your main claims.
• Try to introduce original ideas instead of contributing to ongoing debates. An essay does not allow enough space to let you add something that will change the situation to such discussions.
• The topic of social justice is inherently political, as most suggestions will involve policy-level changes. However, you should try to distance yourself from politics and work with factual information.

Visit IvyPanda to find more social justice essay examples and other useful paper samples to boost your creative process!

• Unemployment.
• Global Warming.
• School Shooting.
• Income Inequality.
• Global Pandemic.
• Social Security.
• Racial & LGBTQ Discrimination.
• Mental Health Stigma.
• Famine and Starvation.
• Discrimination in Voting.
• Social Justice in Education With a clear distinction between justice taught in class and justice allowed to thrive in the school environments, teachers can be able to observe how their students perceive and response to social injustices in the […]
• Jay-Z’s Contribution to Hip-Hop and Fight for Social Justice One should admit that the crime rate among black people in some poor areas is really quite high, and that is another problem Jay-Z covers in his music.
• Advocating for Social Justice in Healthcare However, health care is also often related to the idea of social justice a term that describes the allocation of resources and benefits to people according to their needs and abilities.
• Social Justice Arts as a Remedy for People The work led to the formation of the movement called Black Lives Matter which calls for an end to oppressing black people through law enforcement.
• Freedom and Social Justice Through Technology These two remarkable minds have made significant contributions to the debates on technology and how it relates to liberty and social justice.
• Factors of Strategic Management of Social Justice Starting to talk about economic and technological changes that affect the sector of social justice, it is possible to observe tendencies of the level of development of the country from social policy.
• Social Justice from a Philosophical Perspective Although their theories of justice were significant, they would not have existed without Plato’s influence and the contribution that their ideas of justice have made to political philosophy.
• Social Justice in the Modern World The main link in social relations is a measure of social justice, a derivative of the equality of people’s opportunities to realize their potential.
• Social Justice Quotes from “The Wife’s Lament” by Beck “never worse than now ever I suffer the torment of my exile”.”that man’s kinsmen began to think in secret that they would separate us” “so we would live far apart in the world” “My lord […]
• Social Justice in Counseling Psychology The other barrier which is likely to arise in the process of integrating social justice in the workplace is legal and ethical issues.
• Social Justice and Vulnerability Theories When the country’s economic analyzers assess the status of the economy, the older people are regarded as the first group of the population that is pulling the economy backward because they are entirely dependent.
• Social Justice in Social Work Practice The moral approach of social work is fundamentally based on the idea of social justice. Despite the numerous risks associated with advocating for social justice, criticizing injustice is one of the few courageous ways to […]
• Researching the Concept of Social Justice A special kind of justice is social justice, the subjects of which are large social groups, society as a whole, and humanity.
• Promoting Social Justice Through Serving God Therefore, serving God in action correlates with the promotion of social justice and reflects the importance of Christian teachings about kindness towards others.
• Social Justice and Importing Foreign Nurses Evaluation Given the lag between the submission of the article and its publication, it means that these sources most likely reflect the situation with the recruitment of foreign-educated nurses by the end of the 2000s.
• Promoting Social Justice With Head Start Program This essay will discuss the role of the Head Start program in the promotion of social justice in the US, focusing on the values taught to the children and the activities that constitute the program.
• Social Justice and Mental Health However, it is difficult to imagine the U.S.taking nationwide action on mental health due to the absence of healthcare for physical health, which is widely accepted as a serious issue.
• Religion, Politics, and Social Justice Organized religions want to change and implement rebranding to fit the new trend, concentrating on social justice in general rather than the individual spiritual aspirations of a person or a family.
• Social Justice and Its Relevance in This Century To put the issue in perspective, he references the civil rights movement of the 1960s and juxtaposes it against the fact that the US had a black president.
• Social Justice, Diversity and Workplace Discrimination It also includes the fair distribution of the national wealth and resources among all citizens and the unbiased treatment of all individuals.
• Social Justice: Why Do Violations Happen? If there is social inequality in a society, it must be corrected to serve the interests of the most oppressed groups of the population.
• Social Justice From the Biblical Point of View Furthermore, all oppressed and poor people are considered to be “righteous” in the Bible because it “is a reflection of God’s faithful love in action and his desire for justice and righteousness in this world”.
• Definition of Social Justice and Social Justice in Leadership They should evaluate the situation, identify areas that need improvement and develop a plan to support the achievement of social justice.
• Social Justice Leadership and Supervision While the concepts of leadership and supervision tend to be referenced within the clinical contend and primarily apply to the responsibilities of the professionals in mental institutions, the issues articulated in the article and chapters […]
• Uganda’s Economic Planning and Social Justice On the eastern, it borders Kenya, North is Southern Sudan, to the west is DRC and to the southwest is Rwanda, while to the South is Tanzania.
• Rise of Mental Social Justice It relates to the social justice leadership in clinical and supervisory practice in mental health settings by challenging the modern tenets of managerialism and neoliberalism.
• Social Justice in the US Healthcare System Social justice is a relatively broad concept, the interpretation of which often depends on the political and economic views of an individual.
• Conceptualizing Supervision in Search of Social Justice Based on these findings, it could be concluded that Social justice leadership is meant to become the remedy and the ideological, political, and medical opponent of the dominant positivist biomedical paradigm.
• Researching HIV, AIDS and Social Justice Disney claims that poverty and social injustice lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS among underprivileged people in all countries. The disease was a kind of stigma and infected people were subjected to discrimination and alienation.
• Equal Pay Convention Ratified by New Zealand and Ensuring Social Justice This paper seeks to identify whether the ratification of the International Labour Organisation equal pay for an equal value of work Convention by New Zealand delivered social justice to the women in the New Zealand […]
• Influence of Socioeconomic Status and Social Justice on Health in the US In the video, Richard David and James Collins have determined that racism, inappropriate social policies, and chronic stress are major social factors that lead to the delivery of low-weight babies among African American women.
• Social Justice Perspective Thus public health deals not only with the guarantee of a long healthy life but also regulate and control the death rate, try to expand the life interval, and other things that the policy of […]
• Deaf Youth: Social Justice Through Media and Activism The Deaf Youth USA for instance strives to educate, inspire, and empower the deaf youth to make difference in the communities.
• Social Justice and Feminism in America So as to make a change in this situation, the feminists in America took efforts to improve the condition of women.
• Equality of Opportunity and Social Justice: Affirmative Action If this is the situation in advanced nations of the world, the plight in the newly emerging states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America can easily be imagined as to how difficult would it be […]
• Christianity Religion and Asian World: Social Justice It was also said that the greatest botched opportunity in all church history was in the 1260s the court of the great Kublai Khan asked the Polos when they returned to Italy in 1269 to […]
• Social Justice for Indigenous Women in Canada However, the problem of social justice or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof becomes especially poignant when considering criminal issues and their management, as well as the factors that contribute to reducing the rates […]
• Social Justice in Quality Health Care The provision of accessible health services is necessary to minimize the health risks of the low-income households and improve their quality of life.
• What Is Social Justice? To my mind, the two most important principles of justice that should be used to govern within a just society are the selection of highly virtuous state leaders and government representatives to put in charge […]
• Social Justice: Philosophy of Employment The philosophy of empowerment supports dignity and self-worth; as such, value to all people, regardless of their status or race is an important rule of empowerment.
• American Women’s Movements for Social Justice Like Alice Walker, Deborah Gray, and Collins, Tyra Banks continues the legacy of black women since she is ready to campaign against racism, sexism, and discrimination.
• Social Justice Group Work for Homeless Young Mothers The group discussed in the article was started for the purpose of assisting residents address the problem of homelessness especially in aspects of parenting and during pregnancy periods.
• Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology In that way, the authors noted that racial and ethnic differences tend to produce impact on lives of communities in the entirety of their aspects, and thus can aggravate other social justice issues.
• Health Care Services: Social Justice Analysis For instance, the level of poverty in the USA is on the rise, and many people simply have no funds to purchase their health insurance. In conclusion, it is possible to note that social justice […]
• Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Social media is a new public platform that has proved to be extremely effective in fighting against the normalization of violence against African-Americans.
• Ethics and Social Justice in Education Policies The real-life problem that contributes to those controversies is the multicultural genuineness of the community that was exposed to the federal and state standard reforms that transpired throughout the last ten years.
• Administrative Constitutionalism and Social Justice The current point of view at the crimes and violence is predestined by the commercial pressure applied to the mass media sources. In the majority of the cases, popular media becomes the viral source of […]
• Counselors as Social Justice Advocates The compelling vision of social justice is to achieve “free, full, and equal participation” of all groups in society to realize their aspirations and mutual needs.
• U.S. Postal Service’s Ethics and Social Justice In spite of the fact that the current agency was organized in 1971, the background of the organization is related to the development of the first postal service in the country based on the U.S.
• David Miller’s Theory of Desert in Social Justice The dependence of rewards on the variety of external and conditional factors makes the public and scholars question the idea of the desert and its use for justice.
• Ethics Issues: Social Justice In other words, it is observed that an individual has a duty of ensuring that the law is followed while the government is expected to provide the basic rights and freedoms.
• Education and Social Justice The society should also reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. The current level of inequality explains why “every school should reinvent itself in order to deal with social injustice”.
• Social justice and the black – white achievement gap From a national perspective, the achievement gap between the Black and White is reported to have narrowed down in 2007 as compared to the same gap in 1990.
• Setting an Agenda for Social Justice According to Wilkinson, Brundrett is a professor of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure and the head of the Centre for Research and Evaluation, in the Liverpool John Moores University.
• Prosperity and Social Justice The short story was also the subject of debate when it was first written because it failed to fit in any particular genre at the time.”The Yellow Wallpaper” was mostly considered a horror story when […]
• Social Justice: Wray’s Essential Aspects of Biblical Law and Justice Wray has conducted an extensive study on the subject of social justice and suggests that students taking any course on law or social justice must go back to the origins of these laws and justice, […]
• Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice The church also seeks to instill value in the prisoners’ lives through teachings and practices that accept prisoners as people who deserve to be treated with dignity.
• Social and Criminal Justice Responses to Sex Work The negative attitude of the community and the criminalization of sex works made workers of his industry vulnerable and susceptible for the physical assaults of men in the street, their customers and even policemen.
• Social Justice and the Australian Indigenous People The main idea behind the formation of the social justice commission was to give the indigenous Australian people choice by empowering them to stand up for their rights.
• Is Social Justice the Same Thing as Political Egalitarianism? An Analysis from a Theory of Justice Perspective This is the question that is likely to arise when one is analyzing social justice in the context of political developments in the society.
• Social Justice and Gay Rights This perception of gays was radically reformed thanks to the efforts of gay rights movements which trace their roots to the 1960s and the Stonewall Riots of 1969 which marked the birth of the gay […]
• The People Demand Social Justice: The Social Protest in Israel as an Agoral Gathering
• The Woman Who Spoke of Love and Social Justice
• Peace and Eco-Social Justice: Failed Distributive Justice, Violence and Militancy in India
• Spirituality, Women ‘s Issues, Sustainability, and Social Justice
• Multicultural Counseling Social Justice and Advocacy Reaction
• The Paradox of Dominate Ideologies in The Fight of Social Justice
• Letter from Birmingham Jail’ by Martin Luther King Jr. and Social Justice
• Richard Spencer and the Issues of Social Justice and White Nationalism
• The Moving Beyond Pity and Inspiration: Disability as a social Justice Issue by Eli Clare
• The Importance of Human Rights and Social Justice
• Social Justice: The Role of Higher Education, Criminality and Race
• Turning Points in the Lives of Chinese and Indian Women Leaders Working Toward Social Justice
• Paulo Freire’s Social Justice Idea
• Producing and Practicing Social Justice in Education
• Urban Social Justice: The Gentrification Debate
• The Role of Education in Society as Explained in Conell’s Social Justice in Education
• The Issues of the Canadian Social Services and Social Justice Domain
• Wellbeing, Freedom, and Social Justice: The Capability Approach
• The Principle of Social Justice and Advocacy Support
• The Biblical Prophets’ Teachings on the Love of God in Social Justice
• The Relationship Between Free Market and Social Justice
• Uneasy Bedfellows: Social Justice and Neo-Liberal Practice in the Housing Market
• The Ethics of Pricing and Access to Health Care: A Social Justice Issue
• Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale
• The Importance of the Covenant House as a Symbol of Christian Social Justice
• Social Justice Orientation and Multicultural Environment
• The New Political Economy of J. S. Mill: The Means to Social Justice
• The ‘s Coat of Arms Are Trust, Empathy, and Social Justice
• The Vietnam War and Its Impact on The Creation of Social Justice
• Race Relations and Social Justice Problems
• Poverty, Inequality and Social Justice in Nonmetropolitan America
• Rape Culture, Rapth, and the Cycles of Social Justice
• The Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Me Up as a Citizen in the United States
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue
• The Importance of Social Justice Is Universal Across
• Effective Practice During The Social Justice System
• The Issue of Social Justice Activism in Various Social Media Networks
• Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Expanding the Rawlsian Framework of Global Justice
• Once Upon Today: Teaching for Social Justice with Postmodern Picturebook
• The Congressional Black Caucus Use of Social Media for Social Justice Issues
• The Effective Teaching Techniques of Lisa Espinosa in Providing Information on the Topic of Cultural Relevance and Social Justice
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue?
• How Does Social Justice Highlight the Relationship Between Social Welfare and Crime Control?
• Social Justice and Academic Success: Is Individual Effort Enough?
• Rawls’s Theory of Social Justice: How Decisions Are Made?
• Are Consultation and Social Justice Advocacy Similar Exploring the Perceptions?
• How Arc Advances Social Justice?
• What Are the Different Factors Affect Social Justice?
• What Does the Information Society Mean for Social Justice and Civil Society?
• What Is the Connection Between Curricular Practices, Social Justice and Democratic Purpose in the United States Education System?
• How the United States Has Both Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on The United States?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on Human Development?
• How Does Social Justice Actions Project?
• When High Pressure, System Constraints, and a Social Justice Mission Collide?
• What Is the Concept of Social Justice Social Work?
• What Is the Connection Between Free Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Goal of Social Justice Education?
• What Social Justice Issues Are You Most Passionate About?
• What Is Consist Social Justice Western Perspectives?
• How Social Justice Course Changed My Outlook?
• What Are the Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Up as a Citizen in the United States?
• What Has Limited the Impact of UK Disability Equality Law on Social Justice?
• What Is Rawls’ Expanding Framework for Global Justice?
• How Does the Film “Lord of Flies” Relate to Social Justice?
• Does the Legal System Promote Social Justice?
• Are the People Demand Social Justice?
• Social Justice and the University Community: Does Campus?
• What Does “Social Justice” Mean?
• What Does Teaching for Social Justice Mean for Teachers?
• Why Is Education a Social Justice and Right for Each Child?
• Children’s Rights Research Ideas
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Socioeconomic Status Paper Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Sociological Perspectives Titles
• Idealism Paper Topics
• Respect Essay Topics
• Libertarianism Research Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/

"150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Theories of justice

Social justice movements.

social justice

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• United Nations - World Day of Social Justice
• Humanities LibreTexts - Social Justice
• Academia - Social Justice
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

social justice , in contemporary politics, social science , and political philosophy , the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination , or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.

In theoretical terms, social justice is often understood to be equivalent to justice itself, however that concept is defined. Many somewhat narrower interpretations conceive of social justice as being equivalent to or partly constitutive of distributive justice—that is, the fair and equitable distribution of social, political, and economic benefits and burdens. According to some interpretations, social justice also encompasses , among other conditions, the equal opportunity to contribute to and to benefit from the common good , including by holding public office (such readings are sometimes referred to as “contributive justice”). Other interpretations promote the stronger goal of equal participation by all individuals and groups in all major social, political, and economic institutions.

Another set of definitions of social justice emphasizes the institutional conditions that encourage individual self-development and self-determination—the former being understood as the opposite of oppression and the latter as the opposite of domination. A related concept of justice, suggested by the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum , is that a just society fosters the capabilities of individuals to engage in activities that are essential to a truly “human” life—including, among others, the capabilities to live a life of normal length, to use one’s mind in ways “protected by guarantees of freedom of expression,” and to meaningfully participate in political decision-making. Still other accounts define social justice, or justice itself, in terms of broad categories of human rights , including the entire range of civil and political rights (such as the rights to personal liberty and to participation in government), economic and social rights (such as the rights to employment and to education), and solidarity or group rights (such as the rights to political independence and to economic development ).

Social justice is both a theoretical concept and a practical ideal—an object of social-scientific and philosophical understanding and debate as well as a real-world goal of social and political reform movements. In general, practical ideals of social justice represent an attempt to realize a certain conception of social justice in a particular state or society. Accordingly, such ideals tend to vary with the historical and cultural circumstances in which they are pursued; they may also depend upon current social-scientific understandings of the institutions to be reformed, abolished, or created.

However the notion of social justice is understood, it is naturally grounded in the concept of justice itself. Indeed, the notion of social justice originated as an application of a historical theory of justice to current social problems. Later understandings of social justice have also drawn upon historical theories. Accordingly, this article will discuss the major historical theories of justice and consider their influence upon modern and contemporary social-justice movements.

The first philosophical studies of justice and political authority in the West were undertaken in ancient Greece and Rome by thinkers whose works combined theoretical speculation with generally insightful empirical observations. Arguably the most influential of these works was Plato ’s Republic , a lengthy examination, in dialogue form, of justice as both an individual virtue and a defining characteristic of the ideal political community . For Plato, justice in the individual soul and in the city-state consists of the harmonious operation of the major elements out of which each is constituted: reason, spirit, and appetite in the soul; and rulers, guardians (or soldiers), and producers (e.g., farmers and craftsmen) in the city-state. Harmonious operation in both cases is realized when each element pursues or performs the object or function appropriate to it and does not intrude upon the proper pursuits or functions of other elements. Although Plato’s vision of the just society is strikingly undemocratic and class-based, his emphasis on service to the common good through the integrated functioning of social classes became a salient feature of many later theories. (Notably, Plato held that women were just as capable as men and therefore just as deserving of opportunities to contribute to the common good. Women as well as men, he insisted, would be among the rulers of a just republic.)

Like Plato, Aristotle conceived of justice as both an individual virtue and a characteristic of an ideal (or well functioning) city-state. Aristotle’s theory of political justice has been variously interpreted but is generally understood to encompass the rule of law , the pursuit of the common good (the purpose of the state being to realize the communal basis of the good life for all citizens), the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens among equally deserving or meritorious individuals (distributive justice), and fairness in dealings between individuals (corrective, commutative, or reciprocal justice). Political desert and merit, however, are achieved only by those virtuous citizens who contribute significantly to the common good. Thus, the just society, though based on the competent promotion of the common good, involves a hierarchical social order and an equitable distribution of political rights and responsibilities among ranking members of that hierarchy ( see also Aristotle: Political theory ). Aristotle’s understanding of political justice is to this extent aristocratic .

Aristotle’s view of justice greatly influenced the medieval Christian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas , who followed Aristotle in holding that the purpose of political authority is to promote the good of the community and that in a just society benefits would be distributed by social rank, with “more prominent” community members receiving correspondingly greater benefits. Aquinas’s philosophy and theology became official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, and his vision of justice eventually inspired the measured social reforms advocated by the church in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ( see below ).

In the 17th and 18th centuries the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed influential conceptions of justice based on the notion of a social contract . In primeval times, according to social-contract theory, individuals were born into an anarchic “state of nature,” which they eventually sought to escape because of the danger and misery it entailed or because they wished to experience the advantages of social order. To do so, they formed a society by means of a compact or agreement that defined a set of rights and duties of individuals and a set of powers to be exercised by a central government. Social-contract theories thus attempt to legitimate and delimit political authority on the grounds of individual self-interest and rational consent. Conceptions of justice based on social-contract theory were significantly different from earlier understandings, because they viewed justice as a human creation or social construct rather than as an ideal rooted in objective features of human nature and society. Locke’s particular version of the social contract, which recognized a set of natural individual rights that the social contract obliged the ruling authority to protect, became the philosophical basis of political liberalism .

In the 19th century the English utilitarian philosophers John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick addressed issues of social justice made prominent by the extreme economic inequalities created by the growth of industrial capitalism in Europe and the United States during the Industrial Revolution . Following the utilitarian jurist Jeremy Bentham , who propounded a principle whereby actions are considered morally right or wrong in proportion to the balance of happiness or unhappiness they produce, Mill advanced a theory designed to explain and justify on utilitarian grounds what he understood to be the chief principles of justice, as reflected in the common usage of just , unjust , and related terms. The principles include, among others, the ideas that justice requires respect for the legal and moral rights of individuals and for the right of individuals to possess or receive that which they deserve. Such principles are valid, according to Mill, because a society that consistently observes them (as laws or moral conventions) would in the long run experience a greater level of happiness for a greater number of people than would a society that did not. Broadly speaking, Mill’s vision of a just society encompasses the liberal ideals of individual rights (e.g., to life, liberty, and property), democracy , and free enterprise.

Although utilitarianism was a major current of social thought in the 19th and 20th centuries and thus a major intellectual vehicle of social-justice reform, its explanation of the nature of justice eventually proved vulnerable to serious objections, some of which recall the basic difficulties raised against utilitarian accounts of the rightness or wrongness of individual actions. Some critics of utilitarianism , for example, remained unconvinced that Mill’s conception of justice would rule out any conceivable social order in which the enslavement or exploitation of a minority of the population is accepted on the grounds that it facilitates the happiness of the majority.

Interest in social-contract theories was revived in the second half of the 20th century by the American political philosopher John Rawls . In his A Theory of Justice (1971) Rawls rejects utilitarian accounts of justice (on the basis of the criticism mentioned above) and defends a conception of “justice as fairness.” Rawls argues that justice consists of the basic principles of government that free and rational individuals would agree to in a hypothetical situation of perfect equality . In order to ensure that the principles chosen would be fair, Rawls imagines a group of individuals who have been made ignorant of the social, economic, and historical circumstances from which they come, as well as their basic values and goals, including their conception of what constitutes a “good life.” Situated behind this “veil of ignorance,” any group of individuals would be led by reason and self-interest to agree that (1) each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others and (2) social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawls’s first principle ensures most of the basic rights and liberties traditionally associated with modern liberalism and democracy , and his second principle prevents detrimental inequalities of wealth and income and provides for meaningful equality of opportunity to compete for public offices. Rawls’s work is widely interpreted as providing an intellectual model for the modern capitalist welfare state or a market-oriented social democracy .

Despite its wide appeal, Rawls’s liberal egalitarianism was soon challenged by advocates of conservative libertarianism , who charged that the society Rawls envisioned is unjust because it would allow (indeed, require) the state to redistribute social and economic goods without the consent of their owners, in violation of the owners’ private property rights . Some libertarians, following the American philosopher Robert Nozick , argued that a validly derived social contract would justify only a “minimal state,” with powers limited to those necessary to protect citizens against violence, theft, and fraud. Other critics argued that Rawls’s theory does not take sufficient account of a community’s shared understanding of how it is appropriate to live ( see communitarianism ).

As noted earlier, movements for social justice have been guided and inspired by intellectual understandings of the nature of justice. An early and important example of such influence is the work of the 19th-century Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli, who coined the term social justice in the 1840s. Inspired by Aquinas, Taparelli propounded a conservative vision of justice that legitimates aristocratic rule by grounding it in supposedly natural inequalities between individuals. Later in the 19th century, justice became a central theme of Roman Catholic social teaching, which emerged in response to the dire societal consequences of the Industrial Revolution. The church generally accepted economic inequality and social stratification as the products of natural inequalities of ability between individuals but emphasized the ideally harmonious interworking of socioeconomic classes and the moral obligation of civil society and the state to protect the weak and vulnerable and to promote the common good. The church’s approach to social justice thus represented a course midway between laissez-faire capitalism, which would reject any state intervention in the economy on behalf of impoverished and exploited industrial workers, and socialism , which would impose state ownership or control of the economy to meet the basic needs of workers and to ensure their material equality. Taparelli’s contention that the state is obliged to intervene on behalf of distressed individuals only in situations where smaller social units, including the family, are unable to address the relevant social problems was embraced by Pope Leo XIII (a former student of Taparelli) in his 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum (Latin: “Of New Things”; English title On Capital and Labor ) and reaffirmed in Pope Pius XI ’s 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo anno (Latin: “In the Fortieth Year”; English title Reconstruction of the Social Order ).

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, legal reformers in England and the United States, some of whom were inspired by utilitarianism, began to apply the notion of social justice to issues of legal, economic, and political inequality, including women’s rights , the rights of workers, and the exploitation of immigrants and children. In the mid-20th century, racial discrimination and the civil rights of minorities in the United States, particularly African Americans , came to be recognized as a major problem of social justice, as reflected in the nationwide civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s. From the 1960s and ’70s, women’s rights and the rights of sexual minorities were also major focuses of activists who conceived of their goals in terms of social justice. Later social-justice movements in the United States and Europe were concerned with uncovering and dismantling systemic forms of racial discrimination ( see critical race theory ) and, more broadly, with identifying the various political, economic, and social mechanisms by which members of racial, ethnic, and cultural minorities were—in the estimation of social-justice advocates—oppressed, excluded, and exploited, particularly by white majorities.

These developments reflect the gradual broadening of social justice as a practical ideal, now encompassing a number of themes and issues beyond basic rights and economic equality. In general terms, the ideal that activists aimed for was a society that values fairness and equity for all individuals and social groups in all areas of life; that recognizes and respects differing ethnic, cultural, gender, and other identities among citizens; and, most importantly, that affords a dignified and fulfilling existence for all individuals.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

“When you get these jobs that you have been so brilliantly trained for,” Nobel Prize-winning author, Toni Morrison, used to tell her students , “just remember that your real job is that if you are free, you need to free somebody else. If you have some power, then your job is to empower somebody else.”

This is what the fight for social justice boils down to: an unshakeable belief that all individuals everywhere should have equal access to rights, opportunities, and resources, and the grit and optimism to achieve that. 

A concept that has gained increased attention and prominence in recent years, particularly in the wake of movements such as Black Lives Matter and Me Too , at its core, social justice is about ensuring fairness and equality for all people. It seeks to address systemic barriers and inequalities that exist in society, such as racial inequality, gender inequality, and class inequality, among others, which prevent certain groups of people from accessing the same rights and privileges as others.

Here’s a little primer on all things social justice.

3 Examples of Current Social Justice Issues 

Racial Inequality

Racial inequality is an issue worldwide. Racial disparities range from unequal access to health care and education, to experiencing increased state violence such as police brutality and unfair treatment by criminal justice systems. 

Ethnic minorities, such as the Tatars, in Russia “face governmental and societal discrimination and harassment,” according to Freedom House. In Laos, 80% of children under five in the majority Lao-Tai ethnic group have their births registered, compared to just 59% of the minority Mon-Khmer ethnic group. From Brazil to Britain , Black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, and arrested by police, and are more likely to be given longer sentences than white people convicted of the same crimes. The list goes on.

Not only is this inequality glaringly unjust, it costs lives. 

In Australia, the suicide rate among Indigenous children is five times that of non-Indigenous youth. Black women are three times more likely to die in pregnancy and postpartum than white women in the US. In 2020 in the US, George Floyd died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for over nine minutes, despite Floyd's repeated pleas that he couldn't breathe. The same month in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 14-year-old João Pedro Matos Pinto , was shot in the back by police during a raid on his home. In April of the same year, Collins Khosa , a 40-year-old Black man, was beaten to death by soldiers and police officers in South Africa. 

Gender Inequality

The way things stand, it could take close to 300 years to achieve full gender equality at the current rate of progress. 

The global COVID-19 pandemic, conflict, climate change, and a harsh backlash against women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights have erased a lot of progress towards gender equality.

Violence against women remains high , the majority of the world’s poor are women , 1.2 billion women and girls live in places where safe access to abortion is restricted, 30 million girls remain out of school worldwide, and one woman or girl is killed by someone in her own family every 11 minutes , to give a few examples of how gender inequality persists around the world. 

LGBTQIA+ Inequality

The LGBTQIA+ community faces high levels of violence and discrimination at home, in the workplace, and at school. 

At least 67 countries still have national laws criminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults. Unsurprising, then, that 83% of LGBTQIA+ people worldwide hide their sexual orientation.

In recent years, the trans and non-binary community has experienced a surge of discrimination, which is already leading to violence and a rollback of rights. 

In 2022, there were 327 reported murders of trans and gender-diverse people in the world as a result of anti-trans violence. In the US, more legislation was filed in 2022 to restrict the lives of trans people than at any other point in the nation’s history. Meanwhile, in Ghana, MPs in 2021 proposed what could be world's toughest anti-gay laws with a harsh, sweeping anti-LGTBQ+ bill that would criminalize identifying as LGTBQ+ and having a gay relationship, among other restrictions. 

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Social Injustice?

Before you start thinking we’re quoting The Sound of Music (cue a great rendition of “​​How do you keep a wave upon the sand?”), social justice isn’t some utopia we’ll never achieve. A tall order indeed, but we’ve got to start somewhere.

Step 1: Acknowledge the problem

Recognize that social justice issues exist and are pervasive in many areas of society, including education, health care, employment, and criminal justice. Understand the ways in which historical and systemic factors have contributed to these inequalities. Identify your own intersecting privileges and discriminations you face, examine your own biases and prejudices, and decide how you are best placed to challenge the status quo. Not sure where to start? Head to the Global Citizen app and take our "Equity Hero" challenge .

Step 2: Education

Learn about the root causes of social justice issues and the experiences of marginalized communities. This includes reading books, watching documentaries, listening to podcasts, and attending workshops and events. 

Step 3: Listen, Amplify & Speak

Listen to marginalized voices and amplify the perspectives and experiences of those who are most affected by social justice issues.

Step 4: Take Action

Engage in advocacy and activism to raise awareness about social justice issues and work towards change. This can include organizing and attending protests, signing petitions, contacting your elected officials, and supporting advocacy organizations. We've made it easy for you to start taking action today .

Global Citizen Explains

Demand Equity

What Is Social Justice? A Short Guide for Activists-in-the-Making

Feb. 20, 2023

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

125 Social Justice Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Social justice is a crucial aspect of our society that addresses issues of equality and fairness in various aspects of life, including education, employment, healthcare, and criminal justice. Writing an essay on social justice can be a powerful way to raise awareness about these important issues and spark meaningful discussions.

If you're struggling to come up with a topic for your social justice essay, we've got you covered. Here are 125 social justice essay topic ideas and examples to help you get started:

The impact of systemic racism on communities of color

Gender inequality in the workplace

The criminalization of poverty

LGBTQ+ rights and discrimination

Access to healthcare for marginalized communities

Police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement

Environmental justice and climate change

Disability rights and accessibility

Income inequality and the wealth gap

Indigenous rights and land sovereignty

Immigration and refugee rights

Mental health stigma and access to care

Education equity and the school-to-prison pipeline

Reproductive rights and access to healthcare

The impact of colonialism on global social justice issues

Human trafficking and modern slavery

Workers' rights and fair labor practices

Access to clean water and sanitation

Disability rights in the workplace

The criminal justice system and mass incarceration

LGBTQ+ rights in the military

Access to affordable housing and homelessness

Food insecurity and poverty

Gender-based violence and domestic abuse

The impact of globalization on social justice issues

Disability rights in education

Indigenous rights in the criminal justice system

LGBTQ+ rights in sports

Access to mental health care for marginalized communities

The intersection of race and gender in social justice issues

The impact of social media on social justice movements

Disability rights and technology accessibility

Environmental racism and pollution in marginalized communities

Gender inequality in STEM fields

The impact of gentrification on low-income communities

LGBTQ+ rights in healthcare

Access to reproductive healthcare for marginalized communities

The impact of colonialism on indigenous communities

Disability rights and transportation accessibility

The criminalization of homelessness

Gender inequality in the arts and entertainment industry

The impact of climate change on marginalized communities

LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace

Access to affordable childcare for working families

Disability rights and voting accessibility

The impact of racism on mental health outcomes

Gender-based violence in the military

The intersection of race and class in social justice issues

Access to affordable higher education for low-income students

Disability rights in the criminal justice system

The impact of ableism on healthcare accessibility

Gender inequality in political representation

The criminalization of drug addiction

LGBTQ+ rights in the legal system

Access to clean energy for marginalized communities

Disability rights and inclusive recreation

Economic inequality and social mobility

Indigenous rights in the education system

LGBTQ+ rights in the foster care system

Access to mental health care for veterans

The impact of poverty on educational outcomes

Disability rights and employment discrimination

Gender inequality in the tech industry

The criminalization of sex work

LGBTQ+ rights in the criminal justice system

Access to affordable public transportation for low-income communities

Environmental justice and urban planning

Disability rights and independent living

Gender-based violence in the workplace

The impact of racism on healthcare disparities

LGBTQ+ rights in the education system

Access to affordable childcare for single parents

Disability rights and emergency preparedness

Indigenous rights in the healthcare system

The criminalization of mental illness

Gender inequality in the legal system

The impact of ableism on social inclusion

Access to affordable housing for seniors

Disability rights and social security benefits

The impact of sexism on reproductive rights

Gender inequality in the criminal justice system

Access to affordable healthcare for undocumented immigrants

Disability rights and inclusive education

Economic inequality and access to financial resources

Indigenous rights in the legal system

These are just a few examples of social justice topics that you can explore in your essay. Remember to choose a topic that you are passionate about and that aligns with your values and beliefs. Social justice essays have the power to educate, inspire, and create positive change in our society, so don't be afraid to dive in and start writing. Good luck!

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

8 Tips For Writing A Social Justice Essay

Social justice covers a variety of issues involving race, gender, age, sexual orientation, income equality and much more. How do you write an essay on a social justice issue that’s engaging, informative and memorable? Here are eight tips you should take to heart when writing:

When writing a social justice essay, you should brainstorm for ideas, sharpen your focus, identify your purpose, find a story, use a variety of sources, define your terms, provide specific evidence and acknowledge opposing views.

Do you want to pursue a career in human rights?

Our eBook “ Launching Your Career in Human Rights ” is an in-depth resource designed for those committed to pursuing a career in the human rights field. It covers a wide range of topics, including the types of careers available, the necessary skills and competencies, and the educational pathways that can lead to success in this sector. Whether you’re considering a master’s degree, looking for your first job, or exploring specific human rights issues, this guide offers valuable insights and practical advice. It’s a helpful tool for anyone looking to understand the complexities of working in human rights and how to effectively navigate the challenges and opportunities that come with this important work. Learn more .

#1. Brainstorm creatively

Before you start writing your social justice essay, you need a topic. Don’t hesitate to look far and wide for inspiration. Read other social justice essays, look at recent news stories, watch movies and talk to people who are also interested in social justice. At this stage, don’t worry about the “trendiness” of your idea or whether a lot of people are already writing about it. Your topic will evolve in response to your research and the arguments you develop. At the brainstorming stage, you’re focused on generating as many ideas as possible, thinking outside the box and identifying what interests you the most. Take a free online course to get a better understanding of social justice.

You can take a creative brainstorming approach! A blog on Hubspot offers 15 creative ideas such as storyboarding, which involves laying out ideas in a narrative form with terms, images and other elements. You can also try freewriting, which is when you choose something you’re interested in. Next, write down everything you already know, what you need to know but don’t already, why the topic matters and anything else that comes to mind. Freewriting is a good exercise because it helps you decide if there’s any substance to a topic or if it’s clear there’s not enough material for a full essay.

#2. Sharpen your topic’s focus

The best essays narrow on a specific social justice topic and sharpen its focus, so it says something meaningful and interesting. This is often challenging, but wrestling with what exactly you want your essay to say is worth the effort. Why? An essay with a narrow, sharp focus has a clearer message. You’re also able to dig deeper into your topic and provide better analysis. If your topic is too broad, you’re forced to skim the surface, which produces a less interesting essay.

How do you sharpen your essay’s focus? Grace Fleming provides several tips on ThoughtCatalog . First, you can tell your topic is too broad if it can be summarized in just 1-2 words. As an example, “health inequity” is way too broad. Fleming suggests applying the questions, “Who, what, where, when, why and how,” to your topic to narrow it down. So, instead of just “health inequity,” you might end up with something like “The impact of health inequity in maternal healthcare systems on Indigenous women.” Your topic’s focus may shift or narrow even further depending on the research you find.

Writing a human rights topic research paper? Here are five of the most useful tips .

#3. Identify your purpose

As you unearth your topic and narrow its focus, it’s important to think about what you want your essay to accomplish. If you’re only thinking about your essay as an assignment, you’ll most likely end up with a product that’s unfocused or unclear. Vague sentiments like “Everyone is writing about social justice” and “Social justice is important” are also not going to produce an essay with a clear purpose. Why are you writing this essay? Are you wanting to raise awareness of a topic that’s been historically ignored? Or do you want to inspire people to take action and change something by giving them concrete how-to strategies? Identifying your purpose as soon as possible directs your research, your essay structure and how you style your writing.

If you’re not sure how to find your purpose, think about who you’re writing for. An essay written for a university class has a different audience than an essay written for a social justice organization’s social media page. If there are specific instructions for your essay (professors often have requirements they’re looking for), always follow them closely. Once you’ve identified your purpose, keep it at the front of your mind. You’ll produce an essay that’s clear, focused and effective.

#4. Find a human story

The best social justice essays don’t only provide compelling arguments and accurate statistics; they show your topic’s real-world impact. Harvard’s Kennedy School’s communications program describes this process as “finding a character.” It’s especially useful when you’re writing something persuasive. Whatever your topic, try to find the human stories behind the ideas and the data. How you do that depends on the nature of your essay. As an example, if you’re writing something more academic, focusing too much on the emotional side of a story may not be appropriate. However, if you’re writing an essay for an NGO’s fundraising campaign, focusing on a few people’s stories helps your reader connect to the topic more deeply.

How do you choose what stories to feature? Harvard suggests choosing someone you have access to either through your research or as an interview subject. If you get the opportunity to interview people, make sure you ask interesting questions that dig beneath the surface. Your subject has a unique perspective; you want to find the information and stories only they can provide.

#5. Rely on a variety of sources

Depending on your essay’s purpose and audience, there might be certain sources you’re required to use. In a piece for Inside Higher Ed, Stephanie Y. Evans describes how her students must use at least 10 source types in their final paper assignment. Most of the time, you’ll have a lot of freedom when it comes to research and choosing your sources. For best results, you want to use a wide variety. There are a few reasons why. The first is that a variety of sources gives you more material for your essay. You’ll access different perspectives you wouldn’t have found if you stuck to just a few books or papers. Reading more sources also helps you ensure your information is accurate; you’re fact-checking sources against one another. Expanding your research helps you address bias, as well. If you rely only on sources that reflect your existing views, your essay will be much less interesting.

While we’re talking about sources, let’s touch on citations. If you’re writing an essay for school, your teacher will most likely tell you what citation method they want you to use. There are several depending on the discipline. As an example, in the United States, social science disciplines like sociology and education tend to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style. Some places are very rigid about citation styles, while others are more relaxed. If you’re writing an essay where your citation won’t be checked, you still need to give credit to any ideas, thoughts, or research that’s not yours. Proper citation builds trust with your reader and boosts your credibility.

Here are more tips on writing a human rights essay!

#6. Define your key terms

To make your essay as clear and effective as possible, you want every reader on the same page right at the beginning. Defining your key terms is an important step. As Ian Johnston writes, creating an effective argument requires “the establishment of clear, precise, and effective definitions for key terms in the arguments.” You may have to adapt an existing definition or write your own. Johnston offers principles such as adjusting a definition based on the knowledge of who you’re writing for, focusing on what a term is and not just on its effects, and expanding a definition so it covers everything a reader needs to know.

How do you decide which terms are important in your essay? First, never assume a reader understands a term because it’s “obvious.” The most obvious terms are often the ones that need the clearest definitions. If your reader doesn’t know exactly what you’re talking about when you use a term like “health equity,” your essay won’t be as effective. In general, you want to define any terms relevant to your topic, terms that are used frequently and terms with distinct meanings in the context of your essay.

#7. Provide specific evidence and examples

Social justice issues are grounded in reality, so an essay should reflect that. Don’t spend your whole paper being philosophical or hypothetical. As an example, let’s say you’re writing an essay about desertification in Mali. Don’t discuss desertification as an abstract concept. Include real statistics and case studies on desertification in Mali, who it’s affecting the most and what is being done about it. For every argument you make, present supporting evidence and examples.

The strength of your evidence determines the strength of your arguments. How do you find strong evidence? Cite This For Me lists a handful of examples , such as studies, statistics, quotes from subject matter experts and/or reports, and case studies. Good evidence also needs to be accurate and in support of your argument. Depending on your essay topic, how current a piece of evidence is also matters. If you’re not relying on the most current evidence available, it can weaken your overall argument. Evidence should also be as specific as possible to your topic. Referring back to our desertification in Mali essay, that means locating examples of how desertification affects people in Mali , not in Chad or Russia.

Academic essay writing requires specific skills. Here’s an online introductory course on academic writing .

#8. Acknowledge your critics

Not every social justice essay requires an acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, but addressing critics can strengthen your essay. How? It lets you confront your critics head-on and refute their arguments. It also shows you’ve researched your topic from every angle and you’re willing to be open-minded. Some people worry that introducing counterarguments will weaken the essay, but when you do the work to truly dissect your critic’s views and reaffirm your own, it makes your essay stronger.

The University of Pittsburgh offers a four-step strategy for refuting an argument. First, you need to identify the claim you’re responding to. This is often the trickiest part. Some writers misrepresent the claims of their critics to make them easier to refute, but that’s an intellectually dishonest method. Do your best to understand what exactly the opposing argument is claiming. Next, make your claim. You might need to provide specific evidence, which you may or may not have already included in your essay. Depending on the claim, your own thoughts may be a strong enough argument. Lastly, summarize what your claim implies about your critics, so your reader is left with a clear understanding of why your argument is the stronger one.

You may also like

Child Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

7 Online Courses on Child Protection and Children’s Rights

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Global Justice

On common accounts, we have a state of justice when everyone has their due. The study of justice has been concerned with what we owe one another, what obligations we might have to treat each other fairly in a range of domains, including over distributive and recognitional matters. Contemporary political philosophers had focused their theorizing about justice almost exclusively within the state, but the last twenty-five years or so has seen a marked extension to the global sphere, with a huge expansion in the array of topics covered. While some, such as matters of just conduct in war, have long been of concern, others are more recent and arise especially in the context of contemporary phenomena like intensified globalization, economic integration, and potentially catastrophic pandemics and anthropogenic climate change.

John Rawls’s seminal book The Law of Peoples initiated many debates about global justice (Rawls 1999). Several questions soon became prominent in discussions including: What principles should guide international action? What responsibilities do we have to the global poor? Should global inequality be morally troubling? Are there types of non-liberal people who should be tolerated? What kind of foreign policy is consistent with liberal values? Is a “realistic utopia” possible in the global domain? How might we transition effectively towards a less unjust world?

Contemporary events also played an enormous role in prompting philosophical inquiries. Prominent cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, forms of terrorism uncommon prior to 2001, intensified interest in immigration to affluent countries, increased dependence on the labor of those from low-income countries, and enormous threats to well-being, security and the environment became common catalysts for further work. Philosophers began to reflect on questions such as: Is it ever permissible to engage in coercive military action for humanitarian purposes, such as to halt genocide or prevent large-scale violations of human rights? Can terrorism ever be justified? Should affluent countries open their borders more generously than they currently do to those from low-income countries who would like to immigrate to them? Are our current global economic arrangements fair ones and if not, how should they be transformed? What responsibilities do we have to one another in a globalized, post-Westphalian world order? How should we allocate responsibilities for reducing global injustice in our world, such as in the case of distributing costs associated with addressing climate change?

Increased interest concerning issues of global justice also coincided with enhanced interest in the place and value of nationalism. These explorations tracked events such as nationalist clashes which spilled over into widespread suffering (notably in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda), increased calls for national self-determination to carry considerable weight, such as in state recognition for Palestinians or Tibetans, and also in the case of secession (prominently, Quebec). In this area global justice theorists have been concerned with a range of important questions such as: Under what conditions should claims to national self-determination be granted substantial weight? When should self-determination yield to concern for protecting human rights? Are commitments to nationalism and global justice compatible? Is genuine democracy only possible at the state level or are there robust forms of democracy that are possible in more international fora? How are ideals of democracy best incorporated into defensible global institutional arrangements? Is world justice possible without a world state? In recent years reflection on existential threats like climate change, war, and pandemics and how perspectives of the oppressed might inform the future of the sub-discipline, have contributed new dimensions to answering core questions along with adding central questions within the field.

The primary purpose of this article is to give an orientation to the enormous and rapidly expanding field of global justice. There are several entries in this encyclopedia that already cover some of the core topics well and these will be cross-referenced. But there are still many important gaps, along with some missing context as to how some topics fit together. This entry aims primarily to address these needs.

1.1 Global and International Justice

1.2 what is a theory of global justice, 1.3 when is a problem a global justice problem, 2.1 the influence of rawls’s law of peoples, 2.2 what global duties do we have, 2.3 cosmopolitanism, duties to non-compatriots, and compatriots, 2.4 human rights fulfillment, 3.1 war and just conduct, 3.2 humanitarian intervention, 3.3 terrorism, 4. global economic injustice, 5. global gender justice, 6. race and global justice, 7. immigration, 8. global environmental issues, 9. global health issues, 10.1 natural resources and global justice, 10.2 allocating responsibilities for global problems, 10.3 authority in the global domain: do we need a world state to secure global justice, 11. the contribution to public policy, interdisciplinary engagement, and new methods, other internet resources, related entries, 1. some definitional issues.

A distinction is often drawn between global and international justice. The key point of difference between these two notions involves clarifying the entities among which justice is sought. In international justice the nation or state is taken as the central entity of concern and justice among nations or states is the focus. In the domain of global justice, by contrast, theorists do not seek primarily to define justice between states or nations. Rather they drill down through the state shell and inquire about what justice requires among human beings. Global justice inquiries take individual human beings as of primary concern and seek to give an account of what fairness among such agents involves. There are several types of actions that cut across states or involve different agents, relationships, and structures that might be invisible in an inquiry seeking justice among states exclusively. Many different kinds of interactions are not circumscribed by state membership and yet can importantly affect human beings’ most fundamental interests, so asking the question about what individual human beings owe one another often uncovers significant neglected features of relationships and structures that are of normative concern. Global justice analyses are not precluded from yielding state-level obligations; indeed, they typically do. However, they consider a wider array of possible agents and organizations that might have duties as well.

There are advantages associated with both types of inquiries. An important advantage of asking what states owe one another is that much international law presupposes the states system and requires states to perform various actions to promote justice. In this way, responsibilities often appear to be clearly allocated to particular parties thus making it quite precise who ought to do what in our actual world. One advantage of global justice inquiries is that we are not forced to take states as a fixed constraint and we can therefore consider a range of relevant relationships, capacities and roles that also structure our interactions and might be relevant to how we ought to conceptualize global responsibilities. While asking about what individuals owe each other may well have implications for states and their obligations, a range of other agents and institutions may also have relevant justice obligations. These responsibilities can become more visible when we explore what individuals owe each other. The two approaches have different strengths and can complement each other, but in contemporary debate they are often taken as rivals competing to provide the most plausible framework.

For further discussion of international justice, see the entry on international distributive justice .

In general, a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice on a global scale consists in and this often includes discussion of the following components:

• identifying what should count as important problems of global justice
• positing solutions to each identified problem
• identifying who might have responsibilities in addressing the target problem
• arguing for positions about what particular agents (or collections of agents) ought to do in connection with solving each problem and
• providing a normative view which grounds (1)–(4).

Theories of global justice aim to help us understand our world better and what our responsibilities are in it. While some theorists aim purely at theoretical understanding, others hope also to provide an analysis that can be useful in practical policy making concerning global justice matters.

Problems of global justice arise when one (or more) of the following conditions obtain:

• Actions stemming from an agent, institution, practice, activity (and so on) that can be traced to one (or more) states negatively affect residents in another state.
• Institutions, practices, policies, activities (and so on) in one (or more) states could bring about a benefit or reduce harm to those resident in another state.
• There are normative considerations that require agents in one state to take certain actions with respect to agents or entities in another. Such actions might be mediated through institutions, policies, or norms.
• We cannot solve a problem that affects residents of one or more states without co-operation from other states.

So, in general, a problem is one of global justice when the problem either affects agents resident in more than one state or the problem is unresolvable without their co-operation. For the problem to be considered genuinely global rather than regional it should affect more than one regional area.

2. Principles to Guide Behavior in International and Global Matters

What sorts of duties of justice, if any, exist among human beings who do not reside in the same country? If there are such duties, what grounds them? Some argue that John Rawls’s principles developed for the case of domestic justice, notably, the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle or the Difference Principle, should apply globally (Beitz 1999; Caney 2005a; Moellendorf 2002). Others maintain that the content of our duties to one another is best explored by examining alternative concepts not featured in the Rawlsian corpus, such as capabilities or human rights (Nussbaum 2006; Pogge 2008; Nussbaum 2015).

Much discussion about what we owe one another in the global context is influenced by the work of John Rawls, so a short synopsis is needed to situate debates. Since discussion of these issues is amply covered in the entries on international distributive justice and John Rawls , this will be a compressed summary focusing only on the most central aspects of the debate that have a bearing on core topics of global justice.

In The Law of Peoples , John Rawls argues for eight principles that he believes should regulate international interactions of peoples. For Rawls, a “people” is constituted by a group of persons who have in common sufficient characteristics such as culture, history, tradition, or sentiment. Rawls uses the term “people” in ways that relevantly correspond with how many use the term “nation”. In addition, Rawls often assumes that, for the most part, each people has a state.

The eight principles Rawls endorses acknowledge peoples’ independence and equality, that peoples have the right to self-determination along with having duties of non-intervention, that they ought to observe treaties, honor a particular list of human rights, should conduct themselves in certain appropriate ways if they engage in warfare, and that they have duties to assist other peoples in establishing institutions to enable people’s self-determination. He also advocates for international institutions governing trade, borrowing, and other international matters that are characteristically dealt with by the United Nations.

Several claims have been the subject of much debate between critics and defenders of Rawls’s position. In particular, Rawls believes that so long as all peoples have a set of institutions that enable citizens to lead decent lives, any global inequality that might remain is not morally troubling. Critics draw attention to the ways in which global inequality – perhaps in levels of power or affluence – can convert into opportunities for deprivation and disadvantage. For instance, the global advantaged can use their superior position to influence the rules that govern international institutions – such as trade practices – which can facilitate further opportunities for increased advantage and so they can indeed threaten the abilities of others in distant lands to lead decent lives (Pogge 2008). [ 1 ]

Another important issue that underlies debate between Rawls and his critics concerns different views about the nature and origins of prosperity. Rawls gives a particularly strong statement of what he takes the causes of prosperity to be. He claims that the causes of the wealth of a people can be traced to the domestic political culture, the virtues and vices of leaders, and the quality of domestic institutions. He says:

I believe that the causes of the wealth of a people and the forms it takes lie in their political culture and in the religious, philosophical, and moral traditions that support the basic structure of their political and social institutions, as well as in the industriousness and cooperative talents of its members … The crucial elements that make the difference are the political culture, the political virtues and civic society of the country (Rawls 1999, 108).

Critics observe that in addition to local factors, there are also international ones which play an important role in prospects for well-being. Thomas Pogge prominently helps bring some of these into view. The international borrowing and resource privileges, are good examples of the ways in which international practices can have profound effects on domestic factors which undeniably also play a role in promoting prosperity. According to the international borrowing privilege, governments may borrow amounts of money on behalf of the country and the country thereby incurs an obligation to repay the debt. The international resource privilege refers to a government’s ability to do what it likes with resources, including selling them to whomever it chooses to and at what price. Any group that exercises effective power in a state is internationally recognized as the legitimate government of that territory and enjoys the two privileges. But, Pogge argues, this sets up undesirable incentives that hamper developing countries’ abilities to flourish (Pogge 2008). These include incentivizing those strongly motivated to hold office for material gain to take power by force or exercise it in ways that help reinforce oppressive governments’ abilities to retain control. The global advantaged benefit greatly from these privileges and so have little incentive to reform them. But, according to Pogge, reforms are sorely needed. If only sufficiently legitimate governments are able to enjoy these privileges, the international community would remove one important obstacle developing countries currently face.

Defenders of Rawls’s views argue that his position is more complex than is commonly acknowledged and allows for both a principled stance on some fundamental values along with appropriate openness to alternative ways in which legitimate and decent peoples might organize their collective lives (Reidy 2004; Freeman 2006). They argue that Rawls’s position shows great sensitivity to a number of factors that must be weighed in considering right conduct in international affairs. For instance, when Rawls makes his bold claims about the causes of wealth it is useful to bear in mind the context in which he is arguing. Against an assumption that resources are enormously important for a society’s ability to flourish, Rawls emphasizes the importance of strong institutions, political culture and other local factors, in sustaining decent lives for citizens. Rawls also reflects on the difficulty of changing political culture, noting that simply transferring resources will not help. Interestingly, in a little discussed passage, Rawls ventures that an “emphasis on human rights may work to change ineffective regimes and the conduct of rulers who have been callous about the well-being of their own people” (Rawls 1999, 109). For more on whether Rawls provides us with a cogent model that can provide sage guidance in international matters see the entries on on international distributive justice and John Rawls . See also Martin and Reidy (2006). For the purposes of this entry we need only summarize some key questions that were influential in setting the terms of discussion about global justice for some time.

Some key questions are:

• What principles should govern interactions among peoples at the global level?
• What are the causes of prosperity and are they traceable entirely to domestic factors or are international considerations relevant?
• What should count as the kind of prosperity or well-being that we are aiming to promote?
• Do we have an obligation to ensure people have their basic needs met and can otherwise lead “decent” lives, or should we be more concerned with global socio-economic equality?
• What duties do we have to those peoples who do not yet have what they need for self-determination or prosperity?
• If human rights serve an important role in world affairs, which rights should be on our list of those to endorse? What duties arise from such commitment?
• Can we properly hold nations to be entirely responsible for the well-being of their people and if so, in what kinds of conditions might this make sense? How do we encourage nations to take responsibility for their people’s well-being?
• When we consider what we owe one another, do compatriots deserve special consideration?

We trace some of the influential positions that have shaped answers to these questions next.

One of the most visible and large-scale contemporary global justice problems we face is that of global poverty. What ought we to do for the 1 billion or so people who currently live in poverty? This is a huge area nicely canvassed in the entry on international distributive justice . A few seminal arguments deserve mention here as well, however. In a classic argument Peter Singer describes a so-called easy rescue case in which an infant is drowning in a shallow pond. You happen by and can save the child with minimal effort and inconvenience on your part. Singer argues that you would be obligated to assist using the principle that when it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything significant or comparable, it is wrong not to prevent the bad from occurring. So, Singer argues that we have extensive duties to assist needy others, whether they be geographically proximate or not. We have extensive duties to assist the global poor who, with equally minimal effort on our part, can be saved from dire circumstances, since the same principle applies in both cases (Singer 1972). (For more treatment see Unger 1996 and for criticism see Lichtenberg 2013).

Thomas Pogge offers another influential contribution in World Poverty and Human Rights . He argues that since developed countries impose a coercive global order on the poor that foreseeably and avoidably causes great harm, they have important responsibilities to reform the global order such that it ceases to do so and instead better secures human rights (Pogge 2002, 2008, 2010). We harm the global poor when we collaborate in imposing an unjust global institutional order on them and, moreover, that order is unjust when it foreseeably perpetuates large-scale human rights deficits that can reasonably be avoided were we to make quite feasible institutional modifications (Pogge 2002, 2008, 2010). We also harm the poor when we deprive them of their resources and through a shared and violent history (Pogge 2008). While Singer emphasizes our capacity to assist with need satisfaction, Pogge emphasizes instead our contributions to the problem as grounding our duties.

When discussing our duties to one another there is also vigorous debate about what the content and target of our duties should be, along with discussion about what are the best ways to discharge these. Traditional dominant economic approaches to promoting prosperity have focused on raising income levels or increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Railing against such approaches, Amartya Sen suggested that the capabilities approach provides an improved measure of well-being and constitutes a better way to capture changes in people’s condition over time (Sen 1980). Exploring what people are able to do and be provides a more appropriate standard by which to evaluate whether their condition has improved rather than focusing exclusively on their incomes or per capita GDP. Martha Nussbaum develops this approach and argues for a list of ten capabilities that should be secured for all people in all places. This universal list can provide an important tool in persuading governments to make reforms conducive to their citizens’ flourishing. (See the entry on the capability approach for more.) Another important discourse for discussing duties is that of human rights which is discussed in Section 2.4 below. Before we continue it is important to mention that there are many possible ways to understand the content of our duties to one another. (For more see entries on egalitarianism , equality , sufficiency , capability theory , well-being , and needs in moral and political philosophy ). The issue of our duties to one another is a vast topic and we continue to discuss it throughout this entry. This section serves only as an introduction.

When considering what we owe one another, are compatriots special? Do we have the same duties to non-compatriots as we have to compatriots or is there some principled way in which these two sets of duties ought to differ?

Nationalists argue that we belong to national communities and any account of our global responsibilities that ignores this omits an important aspect of how we relate – and ought to relate – to one another. They argue that nations can provide a valuable grounding for social attachment, identity and meaning in life, and can ground special obligations to strengthen national life and assist co-nationals (Miller 1995; Tamir 1993; Lenard 2012). Others defend the value of nationalism on instrumental grounds; there is nothing inherently special about our co-national relationships but state boundaries are useful in assigning important duties to particular agents (Goodin 1998). In a world of great unmet need, paying special attention to one’s co-nationals can be justified (Goodin 1998; Lenard 2012). [ 2 ]

In the words of Diogenes, widely credited as the first person to propound cosmopolitan views, cosmopolitans see themselves as “citizens of the world”. Contemporary cosmopolitans typically hold that every human being has standing as an ultimate unit of moral concern and is entitled to equal consideration of her interests no matter what other affiliations, especially national affiliations, she might have. Drawing on the idea that we all have equal moral worth, cosmopolitans seek to broaden our moral horizons so that we do not forget about the responsibilities we have to others beyond state borders, even when we have local responsibilities as well.

Prominent cosmopolitans frequently offer accounts that feature different elements. Martha Nussbaum emphasizes that, as human beings, we belong to a global community of human persons (Nussbaum 1996). Nussbaum argues that while love for one’s country might have a legitimate place in people’s conceptions of a good life, we should not overlook the many other relationships we are in which connect us to others in the world. We need to draw the global community in closer to the local one, and, more generally, aim to see ourselves as members of overlapping communities which also have important claims on us.

By contrast, Thomas Pogge focuses on the implications of cosmopolitanism for the global institutional order. We need to ensure that global institutional structures give equal consideration to everyone’s interests. He says, “Insofar as human agents are involved in the design or administration of global rules, practices, or organizations, they ought to disregard their private and local, including national, commitments and loyalties to give equal consideration to the needs and interests of every human being on this planet” (Pogge 2013, 298). This equal-consideration-of-interests requirement only applies to such contexts. While such impartiality norms are perfectly familiar within the state, for instance, when judges operate in law courts, we have yet to realize the requirement at the global level.

It is often assumed that cosmopolitanism must necessarily be in tension with more local attachments to friends, family or compatriots. Some cosmopolitans believe such conflict is inevitable, unproblematic and a necessary part of understanding what cosmopolitanism entails (Ypi 2013a). Others argue for different ways in which the apparent tensions could be resolved (Pogge 2013; Tan 2004; Appiah 2007; Cabrera 2020). As we see above, Pogge emphasizes the clear separation of spheres in which equal consideration of people’s interests applies. Kok-Chor Tan offers a similar argument. His strategy is to show that cosmopolitan principles should govern global institutional structures that ensure people are treated as equals in their entitlements (Tan 2004). When this is the case there can be a legitimate role for patriotism that operates within such constraints. Partiality to co-nationals need not conflict with cosmopolitan obligations. Another notable strategy is to argue that we cannot achieve justice at a national level unless we attend to justice at a global level. On this view, we have at least instrumental reasons to care about global justice, even if we care deeply about social justice in our nation (Banai; Ronzoni and Schemmel 2011; Ronzoni 2013).

There is an important debate among egalitarian theorists about whether our concern with equality should be confined to members of the same state or whether it should extend to all globally. Some theorists argue that careful consideration of notions such as reciprocity, coercion, or fair terms of co-operation mandate that we give special weighting to the interests of compatriots (Blake 2013). Others, by contrast, argue that these concerns, when properly understood, point in the direction of equally strong duties to non-compatriots. One form of the argument that we have special duties to compatriots that are not shared with non-compatriots, draws on the coercive legal structure that applies within states and claims that such coercive structures do not apply outside of them (R. Miller 1998; Blake 2001). Another highly influential version claims that there is a difference in the authority to enforce justice within and outside the state (Nagel 2005). There are many important challenges to such positions. One important line of argument maintains that coercion is indeed relevant in triggering duties of egalitarian justice, but since this is rampant at the global level it activates global not just national egalitarian duties (Cohen and Sabel 2006; Abizadeh 2007; Valentini 2012). So, the same ingredients Nagel identifies as crucial in generating state authority exist at the global level as well (Cohen and Sabel 2006). Nicole Hassoun argues that there are many coercive international institutions and that, to be legitimate, these institutions must ensure that everyone they subject to coercive rules can secure what they need to consent or object to these rules. This requires adequate food, water, shelter, education, healthcare and the social and emotional support they require for sufficient autonomy (Hassoun 2012). Laura Valentini suggests coercion requires freedom as independence (non-domination) but this does not require egalitarianism in the global sphere. Rather, a just global order would be inclusive, not oppressive (Tan 2013, 25). Others provide novel ways of defending cosmopolitan egalitarian theories or combining them with statist commitments. Pablo Gilabert articulates a contractualist theory of egalitarian justice that generates positive obligations to eradicate severe poverty globally even without robust international institutions or cosmopolitan solidarity (2012). Similarly, Lea Ypi defends a statist cosmopolitanism that stresses the importance of political obligations to support cosmopolitan ends. She suggests a significant degree of equality is important for helping everyone secure a basic minimum and cultural resources, a sense of justice, and education can help promote this equality (Ypi 2012; on education and global justice, in particular, see Culp 2020a). Ypi sees fostering the commitment to cosmopolitan ideals as a political, as well as moral, task (Ypi 2013a).

Once again, these are vast topics and more treatment can be found elsewhere in this encyclopedia, such as the entry on international distributive justice . For comprehensive treatment of nationalism and cosmopolitanism see the entries on nationalism and cosmopolitanism , respectively.

Discussion of global justice matters often invokes concern for human rights. In fact, for all their differences, both nationalists and cosmopolitans frequently agree that a good way to think about some of our duties to one another is via human rights. Human rights can and do therefore serve as an important discourse for furthering discussion about our global responsibilities.

Respecting human rights is an important requirement in much international law and can be a key criterion in evaluating whether governments are considered legitimate by the international community. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a highly influential account of all human beings’ basic entitlements and this document often plays an important role in real world debates about justice matters. See the comprehensive entry on human rights for more detail. Here we have space to discuss only two issues that have been prominent in debates about global justice.

The first concerns the kinds of duties we have in relation to human rights. Against a conventional view widespread before 1980, Henry Shue argues that if rights to physical security are basic, so are rights to subsistence (Shue 1980). A careful analysis of the duties associated with human rights indicates that the commonly held distinction between positive and negative duties cannot be maintained. All rights have a range of both positive and negative duties associated with them.

The second prominent issue concerns whether our failures in relation to fulfilling human rights amount to rights violations. Thomas Pogge (2008) offers an influential account of duties with respect to human rights. Our current global order perpetuates global poverty on a massive scale, but since feasible reforms to that order could avert this harm, our failure to make reforms not only implicates us in the misery but also in the violation of the rights of the poor. [ 3 ] We therefore have extensive obligations to reform our global order so that the rights of the poor can be fulfilled.

Many theorists have done important work on a range of issues concerning human rights and international obligations (Buchanan 2004; Hessler 2005; Nickel 2007; Beitz 2009; Holder and Reidy 2013; Song 2019). Theorists have also focused attention on particular rights, prominently the right to health (Wolff 2013). Some important questions include: What are human rights’ grounds or can they be defined by their functions? Are human rights properly moral or political/legal? Does respect for rights conflict with community obligations or respect for culture? What is the proper role of human rights in morality, law, and policy? How should we best understand the normative implications of our contemporary human rights practice? (Wolff 2013; Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015; Gilabert 2019; Etinson 2018; O’Neill 2005; Beitz 2009; Brock 2023).

For more treatment of issues, especially concerning what human rights are, which rights are rightly construed as human rights, and how human rights function in international law, see the entry on human rights .

3. The Proper Use of Force, Military Intervention, and its Aftermath

Within the field of global justice, issues concerning war have one of the longest histories. The just war framework has been influential in setting the terms of much debate about the proper use of force in international affairs. Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas offered some of the earliest accounts of the criteria that should be met for war to be justified. Two areas have been especially thoroughly studied: (1) the conditions under which entry into the war is justified (Jus Ad Bellum) and (2) the conditions for fair conduct within the war (Jus In Bello). While having a just cause is standardly held to be a necessary condition for a war to be justified, it is not sufficient. Theorists often disagree about which additional conditions must be satisfied for a war to be characterized as a just war. The most common additional conditions proposed are that the war should be undertaken by a proper authority, with the right intentions, when the war would follow requirements of proportionality (the ends to be secured would warrant going to war), only as a last resort, and when there are reasonable prospects of success. On traditional accounts of just war theory all conditions must be met, while several theorists challenge whether they are all necessary (Mellow 2006; Moellendorf 2002; Walzer 1983).

Once the fighting begins two central principles guide evaluation of whether the war is being conducted fairly: one which respects the distinction between combatants and noncombatants (The Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity) and another that governs what counts as the proportional use of force (Proportionality). On the first, it is not legitimate to use force against civilians and, even though some collateral civilian damage may occur, it is wrong to deliberately target non-combatants. On the second, combatants may only use the force necessary to achieve their ends – the force used must be proportional to the ends that are to be secured in conducting the war. There are further requirements governing fairness, such as requirements to comply with international laws and treat prisoners fairly, but the two featured principles are the most commonly invoked in normative analyses of Jus In Bello .

The third part of just war theory ( Jus Post Bellum ) concerns how the war concludes and the transition back to a situation of peace (Bass 2004, Rodin 2008). It deals with issues such as compensation, punishment, and reform (Ohlin 2014). A fourth component has been suggested especially in light of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan in the years 2001–2011, namely, justice in exiting the war ( Jus Ex Bello ), which concerns when it is appropriate to end a war (Moellendorf 2008; Rodin 2008).

There are many contemporary global justice issues concerning the appropriate use of force (and its aftermath) that currently command attention including: Is drone warfare (or any kind of warfare) permissible? Can terrorism ever be justified? Are “targeted assassinations” (where leaders who are primarily responsible for decisions to go to war are targeted for assassination) justifiable? May we engage in a war in order to prevent an anticipated “worse war”? Is torture to contain major global threats permissible? Is the attempt to contain nuclear weapons development by those who have them already fraught with hypocrisy? How should we deal best with societies in a state of transitional justice? Is there a place for “Truth and Reconciliation Committees” (Walker 2006)? When are political apologies for historic injustice in warfare appropriate? Some suggest that the changing nature of combat has fundamentally altered the ethics of war, for instance emphasizing how individuals can be held morally accountable for their participation and actions contributing to unjust wars (Ryan 1983; McMahan 2009; Pfaffe 2020; Ohlin 2014; Reitan 2018). Scholars also consider different ways to engage in defensible non-militaristic international reform interventions (Rafanelli 2021).

Here we consider very briefly only two further issues that continue to attract widespread current interest in the global justice literature: Humanitarian Intervention and Terrorism. See the entry on terrorism for an extended analysis of such questions. See the entry on war for a comprehensive overview of issues concerning justice in war.

Under what conditions, if any, may we engage in military intervention aimed at stopping genocide? In recent years this issue has become salient as large-scale human rights violations and suffering unfolded in Rwanda, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, and Libya. Against the traditional understanding that respecting state sovereignty requires non-interference, successful arguments were marshaled that there are important responsibilities to protect the vulnerable (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty 2001). Leaning heavily on the conventional conditions contained in the just war framework, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty argued that we may engage in war aimed at protecting those who suffer at the hands of governments unwilling or unable to stop large-scale human rights abuses. The commission produced an influential report “The Responsibility to Protect” which was accepted by the United Nations in 2005, and the principles contained in the report have guided decisions about cases, such as Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2012. One frequently voiced concern about humanitarian interventions is whether they are just another form of imperialism. How will interveners be held accountable for their actions? Taking such concerns seriously Allen Buchanan and Robert Keohane advocate for a series of innovative mechanisms of accountability, both before and after the proposed intervention takes place, to allay fears about abuse (Buchanan and Keohane 2004).

What kinds of violence count as terrorism? Is there a difference between state terrorism and that perpetrated by insurgent organizations? Might terrorism be justified under certain circumstances? Terrorism centrally involves either using or threatening to use violence against people, commonly taken to be innocent, in order to produce results that would not otherwise occur (Coady and O’Keefe 2002; Primoratz 2013). Some challenge that the targets are innocent. As terrorists often point out about citizen complicity in atrocities, citizens pay taxes and vote, and their governments undertake actions that they can be said to sanction and from which they benefit, so it is coherent to hold citizens responsible for their governments’ actions. On this argument, citizens can be legitimate targets of violence. In addition, there is relevant precedent from governments targeting civilians when they perceive the situation to be one of a “supreme emergency”, as happened in the case of Britain targeting German civilians in the Second World War. So when governments judge that some moral disaster is sufficiently likely, it can be repelled using unorthodox and otherwise repugnant means.

Do global economic arrangements – especially economic globalization – give rise to important responsibilities? Globalization is a complex phenomenon, characterized by the faster movement of people, goods, and ideas across borders but with many facets. For our purposes we need to note only some of its characteristic central features. These include (i) an increasingly globally integrated economy, (ii) dominated by transnational corporations engaged in activities (such as production and distribution) that span multiple countries, (iii) increasing regulation of economic matters by supranational institutions (such as the World Trade Organization), (iv) general commitment to removal of barriers to “free trade,” and (v) higher levels of economic interdependence. While there is much debate about the long-term effects of globalization and whether they are on balance good or bad, at this stage, the effects of globalization have been mixed. For some, globalization has brought improvements, while it has worsened the position of others (Singer 2002; Hassoun 2008; Risse 2012a; Risse and Wollner 2019).

Philosophers have been concerned with answers to a range of questions such as: What kinds of economic arrangements are just? Should our international institutions be reformed to better reflect fair terms of co-operation in our globalized world? Can globalization be better managed so that it works to assist the global poor more effectively? Are protectionist policies in trade justified or, rather, is free trade required by considerations of justice? Should poor working conditions in developing countries be a matter of concern for citizens and consumers in affluent, developed countries? If so, how might harmful employment conditions be effectively improved?

While Thomas Pogge argues that globalization has harmed the poor on a massive scale, Mathias Risse argues that this is not at all clear (Pogge 2010; Risse 2005). Risse argues that in many ways the global order must be credited with benefiting the global poor as well. He challenges Pogge’s claim that there are feasible alternatives to our global order that could be easily implemented and would avert the harm to which Pogge draws attention.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been an important focal point for discussion about global economic justice. In particular, critics argue that some of its policies, such as those that generally advocate free trade but allow protectionism in affluent developed countries, involve grave hypocrisy and unfairness to some of the world’s most vulnerable people, while others defend some key WTO provisions (Risse and Wollner 2019; Pogge 2001; Moellendorf 2002; Hassoun 2009a, 2011; James 2012). For further reading see: de Bres 2016. There are also large disparities in the resources at the disposal of various parties such that weaker parties often suffer huge disadvantages in being able to negotiate agreements that work well for them. In these sorts of ways agents in developed countries (such as governments, citizens or firms) can take unfair advantage of those in developing countries (R. Miller 2010; Barry and Reddy 2008).

More generally, there are concerns related to the extraordinary power of multinationals and the undue influence they are able to exercise in negotiating deals favorable to them at the expense of the interests of the most vulnerable. So-called sweatshops (in which workers typically labor under harsh and hazardous conditions) are also a frequently raised example of how western consumers are implicated in far away suffering, given the high level of dependence in high-income countries on labor from low-income ones. When we purchase products manufactured in sweatshops are we guilty of contributing to exploitation and if so, what ought we to do to mitigate these unfairnesses? Christian Barry and Sanjay Reddy offer an innovative proposal to incentivize improvements in labor standards and wage levels in poor developing countries (Barry and Reddy 2008). This “Just Linkage” proposal offers some additional desirable opportunities for enhanced international trade to those who meet higher standards.

In this domain, philosophers have also examined a range of other issues including obligations to forgive odious debt and whether micro-finance is to be welcomed as a positive force for the global poor (Barry, Herman and Tomitova 2007; Khader 2014; Sorell and Cabrera 2015; Hassoun 2019).

Several philosophers have considered individuals’ obligations to promote economic justice through ethical consumption. There is an important debate on whether ethical consumption is helpful and required (Risse 2005; Walton 2014). Some argue that ethical consumption is only permissible when appropriately democratic (Hussain 2012; Barry and MacDonald 2018). Others argue that ethical consumption is permissible as long as it promotes positive change (Hassoun 2018; Berkey 2021; Budolfson 2015).

Other more general concerns about exploitation and economic justice can be found at the entries on exploitation and normative economics and economic justice . See also the entry on globalization .

The effects of poverty do not fall equally on men and women, nor on boys and girls. In general, poverty makes the lives of women and girls harder than their male counterparts, as cultural expectations often dictate that women and girls do more care and domestic work or go without (or much less) when resources are scarce. This can significantly thwart women and girls’ well-being, as education, health care, and food are routinely withheld in favor of distribution to men and boys.

Cultural perceptions of gender roles can often lead to practices highly damaging to the most fundamental interests of women and girls. These include “honor killings” (where it is believed culturally permissible to kill a girl or woman who is perceived to have brought shame to the family), genital mutilation, infanticide, forced prostitution, arranged marriage, and legal recognition of property and inheritance rights that significantly disadvantage women and girls. Poverty can exacerbate such vulnerabilities so we have further reasons to address it as a matter of urgency (Jaggar 2009, 2013, 2014). Martha Nussbaum has argued for a list of ten capabilities that all human persons, no matter what their gender, ought to be positioned to exercise. She argues that this approach offers a powerful tool for persuasion in cases where girls and women are denied these opportunities by local actors in different cultures.

Alison Jaggar prominently argues that various structures create and recreate transnational gendered vulnerabilities and she illustrates with practices common in domestic work and the sex industry (Jaggar 2009, 2014). Anca Gheaus has argued that patterns of international immigration – where women typically provide an international market for care work – constitute a kind of care drain. This work is not fully voluntary occurring against a background of unjust options, and amounts to a major issue for women and their families as well as countries and global justice more broadly (Gheaus 2013; Eckenwiler 2009). Others focus on how universal values can inform feminist approaches and discuss how concrete issues like globalization affect women (Khader 2014, 2018; Parekh and Wilcox 2018). (For more see also the entry on feminist perspectives on globalization ).

Some important policies have influenced international discourse in combating gender injustice. The Millennium Development Goals (MGDs) includes as a third goal the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women (for discussion of the MGDs, see: Pogge and Sengupta 2020). The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action set the stage for several International Covenants and before that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women afforded some important protection for women’s human rights. Some theorists are suspicious of human rights language and are inclined to reject what they perceive as a masculine or neocolonial discourse that trumpets individual autonomy in a way that fails to acknowledge, adequately, our fundamental human interdependence and history of oppression (Jaggar 2020). While there certainly is a place for discussion of these important themes, others argue that we should not lose sight of the important victories human rights have also been able to secure, despite still having a long way to go (United Nations n.d.). The rhetoric of human rights has enabled substantial gains for promoting gender equality and protection of women’s fundamental interests, so it has at least strategic value.

For a good survey of recent work on global gender justice, see Jaggar 2020. For more on solutions to often discussed problems, such as adaptive preferences, see Khader 2011, 2018. For more see the entries on feminist perspectives on globalization and feminist perspectives on power .

Discussion of how histories of imperialism and racial discrimination have shaped current patterns of global injustice have become more prominent in Anglo-American discussions of global justice. In particular, concerns arise about how colonial histories affect continued oppression and exploitation of racial minority groups on a global scale (Mills 1997; Bell 2019; Boxill 2009; Okeja 2019; Buckinx, Trejo-Mathys, and Waligore 2015a; Lu 2017). Shining a light on how colonialists often embraced beliefs about racial inferiority and superiority, theorists argue that white supremacy has played an important role in structuring ways of thinking about global justice. Key questions that emerge from such analysis include: Have debates about global justice been inclined to ignore imperial histories (especially of racial domination) and if so, how should that be taken into account now? Are egalitarian cosmopolitan accounts effectively trying to promote liberal imperialism or can such discourse effectively combat it? What alternative resources can we find in other traditions of political thought and practice for theorizing global justice in insightful ways? While some argue that liberalism and imperialism are inextricable (Mehta 1999), others are more optimistic about liberalism’s prospects. Yet others believe that sometimes imperial-like solutions are necessary to solve especially challenging problems (Ignatieff 2003). (For a good range of views see Bell 2019).

Reflecting on the philosophical field of global justice, it is notable that until more recently, race is often absent from some of the most prominent discussions of global justice. Charles Mills was an especially important figure in drawing attention to these omissions. In his view, this means that theoretical debates have largely ignored or misunderstood “some of the principal sources and sites of injustice” (2019). These omissions can often be traced to dominant methods in Anglo-American philosophy in which ideal theorizing (in a Rawlsian fashion in particular) brackets out certain issues in a conscious way. But putting to the side issues of (say) racial domination means we will be blind to core histories and practices, such as slavery, imperialism, and racism that structure our contemporary world.

Discussion of race and empire have not been completely ignored by global justice theorists. For instance, there is an important literature on historical injustice and reparations (Butt 2008; Tan 2007; Lu 2016; Barry and Goodin 2009), and another on trying to identify how to describe the wrongs of colonialism (Ypi 2013b; Stilz 2015; Valentini 2015). Margaret Moore draws attention to the ways in which the dispossession of land and racial domination are particularly important features in identifying the wrongs of settler colonialism (2016). And yet, the concerns Mills raises still resonate. What would global justice theorizing look like if it placed histories and contemporary practices of racial domination at its core? How can we better integrate histories of colonialism and racial domination into our thinking about current problems of global justice?

For some, this means we must reject theoretical frameworks and vocabularies currently on offer by most political philosophers; others do not believe wholesale rejection is needed. (For a good review of positions see Bell 2019). Charles Mills exemplifies the first approach. For Mills, global justice theorists have failed to take seriously global white supremacy and its legacy and this is especially noteworthy given its role in understanding current patterns of global inequality, poverty and violence (1997, 2019). We need to consider this history and make race a central site of investigation for global justice theorizing, which requires rejecting Rawlsian-style ideal theorizing. It would also involve giving a more prominent role to issues of corrective justice and seeking compensation for the wide-scale massive injustices perpetrated through structures of global white supremacy. Similar views can be found in the work of Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò who writes: “Injustice and oppression are global in scale… [b]ecause Trans-Atlantic slavery and colonialism built the world we live in, and slavery and colonialism were unjust and oppressive”, reparations require remaking the “world system” (Táíwò 2022, 1). On his account, reparations require, among other things, reconciliation and eliminating institutional racism (Táíwò 2022, 4).

Another very important literature has emerged concerning the many alternative understandings of justice that can be found in places formerly dominated by colonial occupation. Indigenous philosophies have many important insights to offer (Lauer 2017; Metz 2017; Watene 2022). In particular, scholars often consider the prospects for indigenous perspectives to promote global environmental justice (Whyte 2014; Watene 2022). Locally embedded frameworks often support, but also provide new alternatives to, traditional approaches to human needs, rights, international development and justice issues more generally (Lauer 2017; Menkiti 2017; Metz 2017).

Ines Valdez (2019) argues we should substitute discourse centered on obligations and duties with one centered on power, coalition-building and contestation. Kimberley Hutchings (2019) emphasizes that in decolonizing our theorizing about global justice, we have to change the way we see the practice of global justice theorizing. We need to think of the latter less as a way to arrive at answers to global justice questions and more as a way to live with others without subsuming them into a particular world. Rather, opening up the conversation to sharing different perspectives we embark on a collaborative approach to experiments in living and being with others. It is not about finding new answers to what we mean by justice but rather “about finding new ways of relating to ourselves and to each other in our pursuit of whatever we may think of as justice” (2019, 121). Adopting such perspectives may reduce some noted tensions in being part of a world community and others that are smaller, drawn along racial, ethnic or other identity lines (Appiah 2007).

For more on these topics see the entries on colonialism , race , black reparations , reconciliation , transitional justice , and critical philosophy of race .

There are many issues debated in the global justice literature concerning migration, whether temporary, permanent, legally sanctioned or undocumented. These include: Should states have the right to control their borders? Even if they have such a right, should states be more generous in admitting would-be migrants, especially considering the facts about global disparities in life prospects? When affluent developed states refuse to open their borders to the economically disadvantaged, is this equivalent to members of the aristocracy unjustly protecting their privilege, as was the case in feudal times? What responsibilities are there to refugees? Can undocumented immigration be justified under certain contemporary circumstances? What sorts of criteria may affluent developed countries use when selecting migrants from the pool of applicants for citizenship? May they legitimately consider how prospective migrants would fit in with current citizens, favoring certain religious, linguistic, or ethnic affiliations to manage compatibility? When making migrant selection decisions, should they consider the effects on those who remain in countries of origin and if so, is this fair to the would-be migrants who would be excluded on grounds of alleged negative impacts for home country citizens? If states admit migrant workers, are there moral constraints on how they should be treated? Would admitting temporary workers without simultaneously allowing them a pathway to citizenship be unjust? What responsibilities do we have in relation to human trafficking?

There are several now classic defenses of state’s rights to control borders. David Miller (Miller 2005, 2007), Michael Walzer (Walzer 1981) and Christopher Wellman (Wellman and Cole 2011) have been particularly important. Prominent proponents of the alternative “Open Borders” position include Joseph Carens (Carens 1987, 2013), Philip Cole (Cole 2000; Wellman and Cole 2011), Chandran Kukathas (2021) and Alex Sager (2018). While many theorists discuss the responsibilities to refugees and guest workers, Walzer’s treatment is particularly influential, especially in arguing for his view that guest worker programs are only justified when they offer such “guests” a proper pathway to full and equal citizenship (Walzer 1981). See also: Owen 2020 and Miller 2020. Within the global justice literature, there is considerable discussion of the ethics of recruiting migrants away from poor countries. Whether brain drain issues should be salient for migration decisions has been a focal point for some discussion (Carens 2013; Oberman 2013; Brock and Blake 2015; Bertram 2018). More generally, much recent discussion concerns justice in state admission policies and the kinds of factors that may or should be included in deciding who to admit and exclude (Wellman and Cole 2011; Lister 2010; Oberman, Fine and Ypi 2016; Blake 2019; Sager 2018; Song 2018; Brock 2020; Morgan 2020; Wilcox 2021; Hidalgo 2021; Buckinx 2019; Jaggar 2020; Vasanthakumar 2022). There has been considerable discussion of appropriate treatment for refugees (see especially Serena Parekh 2017, 2020 and Brock 2020). And discussion has also focused on duties for those who leave their countries of origin (Vasanthakumar 2022; Brock and Blake 2015). For more detailed coverage of issues concerning migration matters, see the entry on immigration .

Patterns of human behavior that destroy habitats, accelerate species extinction, exacerbate toxic levels of pollution, degrade the oceans, contribute to ozone layer destruction, or increase population levels are all issues of global environmental concern (Armstrong 2022; Gardiner 2011; Gardiner, Caney, Jamieson, Shue, and Pachauri 2010). However, although there are many global environmental topics that are rightly concerns of global justice, there is one that dominates discussion and that concerns our responsibilities with respect to climate change. Here we focus exclusively on this issue.

Among the scientific community it is no longer controversial that anthropogenic climate change is real and a significant threat to the well-being of both current and future generations. But it is also widely acknowledged that human development is an important way to address high levels of global poverty, that such development is energy intensive, and the cheapest sources of energy available are not likely to be clean energy types. These considerations significantly affect efforts to deal with problems presented by climate change. There is much discussion about the principles that should inform a fair treaty aimed at dealing with addressing climate change that also gives appropriate weight to concerns for human development (Shue 2014; Athanasiou et al. 2022). Some of the main contenders include principles that recognize causal responsibility for high emission levels, principles that are sensitive to ability to pay, and ones according to which those who have benefited from emissions should now be expected to absorb more costs.

We have not all contributed equally to the problems created by emissions; industrialized nations have contributed historically at much higher levels than those that are still developing. And so we should endorse the guidelines that those who have polluted more should pay more to help redress current problems (The Polluter Pays Principle). However critics argue that this principle unfairly holds some responsible when they did not know they were causing harm, since it was not widely known that greenhouse gases could result in climate change prior to 1990. So on this view, responsibility for emissions prior to 1990 should not conform with the Polluter Pays Principle, even if it is used to allocate costs after 1990. Others reply that countries can still be liable for causing harm even if they lack moral responsibility for doing so (Shue 2014). A second principle that is often discussed is The Beneficiary Pays Principle. Those who live in industrialized countries have typically benefited greatly from high levels of emissions so it is not unfair if they are expected to pay a higher proportion of costs. Critics object that a history of benefiting is an insufficiently strong consideration for assigning responsibilities now: in many cases whether or not people benefit is largely outside of their control. According to a third popular principle, The Ability to Pay Principle, the capacity of agents to pay for costs associated with mitigating climate change should be relevant. Again, some object that the ability to pay is a poor principle for assigning responsibility.

More recently, philosophers have evaluated different proposals for not only mitigating and distributing the costs of climate change but also adaptation to its diverse effects (Gosseries 2004; Vanderheiden 2008; Gardiner, Caney, Jamieson, Shue, and Pachauri 2010; Blomfield 2019; Shue 2014, 2021; Brooks 2020). Moreover, they have considered how we can mobilize hope in the face of the seemingly tragic consequences of our failures to both address the challenges of climate change and human development in a timely manner (Moellendorf 2022; Cripps 2022; Malm 2021; Mckinnon 2022). Some of this work connects to important debates about feasibility and institutional mechanisms for addressing climate change fairly (Caney 2020; Gheaus 2013; Gilabert and Lawford-Smith 2012). For more on climate justice see the entries on climate justice and climate science (Parker 2018; Caney 2022). Comprehensive treatment of climate justice requires addressing the issue of responsibilities to future generations (Meyer and Gossieries 2009). For important treatment of our responsibilities to other generations see the entry on intergenerational justice .

One striking feature of the state of global health is that there are large inequalities in health outcomes and opportunities for health. Consider that life expectancy can vary a great deal. A person born in Sierra Leone can expect to live about 40 years whereas one born in Japan can expect to live for 80 years. Malaria has been almost entirely eradicated in high-income countries, but it still kills about a million people in developing countries per year (United Nations 2009). A woman in Niger has a 1 in 7 chance of dying in childbirth, whereas this is 1 in 11 000 for women in Canada (Benatar and Brock 2011, 2021). The global burden of disease is by no means evenly spread nor does workforce capability correspond with areas of highest need. In fact many of the countries that suffer from the greatest burdens of disease have the fewest skilled healthcare workers. In addition, pharmaceutical companies do not spend their research and development budgets in ways that match where the needs are greatest. Rather, seeking the most profitable ventures, they are much more likely to spend resources developing drugs for lucrative markets where the payoffs are greatest, even when the marginal benefits to consumers are small. One example is the research and development resources pharmaceutical companies frequently spend on developing drugs that are similar to others already available, rather than developing treatments for diseases for which there are no cures. Historically, it is estimated that drug companies spent approximately 90% of their research and development resources in seeking treatment for about 10% of diseases and some argue that justice requires reorienting incentives for new research and development to better align with the global disease burden (Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group 2001; Flory and Kitcher 2004).

The poor in developing countries are also often more vulnerable to disease and less able to resist disease because of poor living conditions related to poverty. Lack of clean water, clean energy sources, inadequate nutrition, and other social determinants of health play a key role in explaining this increased vulnerability. Living in overcrowded houses can facilitate the spread of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis. So, a number of issues that sustain poverty or exacerbate people’s vulnerability to disease as a result of poverty should be of concern (Benatar and Brock 2021). As Norman Daniels argues, health inequalities among different social groups can be considered unjust when they result from unjust distribution in factors that are socially controllable that affect population health (Daniels 2011, 101). On this view many health inequalities that exist are ones that ought to be of concern as they meet this criterion. How should responsibilities for improving this situation be allocated? In many ways, but here we pick out just a few that have received considerable attention in the philosophical literature.

The current system of intellectual property rights is one troubling area. The World Trade Organization grants product patents for a twenty year period which effectively renders many new medicines unaffordable for the vast majority of the world’s population and those in greatest need. There are a number of innovative proposals aimed at addressing these issues. One prominent example is the Health Impact Fund proposal developed by Thomas Pogge, which offers alternative ways to reward pharmaceutical companies, notably by how much impact they have on actually curing diseases (Pogge 2008). The greater their impact, the larger the share of the rewards they would receive from the Health Impact Fund. Nicole Hassoun proposes a “Global Health Impact” certification program for rating pharmaceutical companies’ contributions to the global poor (Hassoun 2020). Companies would compete for the gold star rankings which could significantly affect consumption choices and thereby expected profits. In both cases the aim is to create important incentives for key agents to care about how their products affect the global poor.

There are many other issues that concern philosophers in the domain of global health. There are worrying practices of experimentation on disadvantaged subjects in developing countries (Emanuel et al. 2004). Increasingly, clinical research has been outsourced to poor, developing countries with populations that are often highly vulnerable. We might wonder about whether these populations are being exploited and whether the participants have compromised abilities to consent to drug trials. In many cases the trials bring considerable health benefits that would not come their way were it not in the interests of pharmaceutical companies to do clinical research in those locations. If sufficient benefits accrue for local populations, some argue that these cases need not be of concern, while others disagree (Emanuel et al. 2004; London 2011).

New infectious diseases and the threat of pandemics are creating further questions about our responsibilities. Often the case is made that national interests in public health in developed countries mandate concern for infectious diseases that originate in developing countries. When resources for addressing these threats are limited, some argue it is acceptable for states to prioritize their populations, while others disagree (Hassoun 2021; Ferguson and Caplan 2021; Savulescu 2020). There are also important debates about how to distribute vaccines across borders and about whether other public health policies – e.g. immunity passports – violate individual rights or are justified for protecting public health (Emanuel et al. 2020; Emanuel et al. 2021; Herlitz et al. 2021; Liu, Salwi, and Drolet 2020; Persad and Emanuel 2020; Voigt 2022; Jecker 2022; Bramble 2020; Baylis and Kofler 2020a, 2020b; Jecker, Wightman, and Diekema, forthcoming). Some argue that global justice – solidarity and respect for human rights – demands addressing diseases that are not as transmissible as COVID-19 and may not pose as significant threats to many people in developed countries (Daniels 2007; Atuire and Hassoun 2023; Gould 2018; Lenard and Straehle 2012; Benatar and Brock 2021; Herlitz et al. 2021). There is also significant concern for fair procedures in addressing health crises globally.

For more see also public health ethics , and justice, inequality, and health .

10. Some Issues that Cut Across Several Themes

Discussion of natural resources often figures prominently in several topics of global justice. Some relevant questions include: Are national communities entitled to the resources they find on their territories? Should principles of global justice apply to our arrangements for justly distributing natural resources? Charles Beitz was an early proponent of a resource distribution principle, according to which natural resources should be allocated such that each society is able to provide adequately for its population (Beitz 1975). We saw in Section 2 that Rawls believes that resources are not important to prosperity in the ways many imagine. Rather, institutional resilience matters more. By contrast, Thomas Pogge highlights the ways in which international practices concerning the distribution of resources create considerable obstacles for prosperity in developing countries. In short, these practices create incentives for the wrong kinds of people to take power through illegitimate means and to focus on retaining power at the expense of other goals governments should have, such as trying to improve the well-being of their citizens. We need to modify these international practices so they do not create such an unfavorable environment. In addition, Pogge proposes a Global Resources Dividend as one measure by which practices concerning natural resource distribution would work in some small way to the benefit of the global poor. On this Global Resources Dividend proposal there would be a small tax on resource extraction, payable by the consumers of resources, and available for projects that would assist in helping everyone to be able to meet their basic needs with dignity (Pogge 2008).

Leif Wenar is also concerned with prevailing practices governing the sale of natural resources and their products (Wenar 2010, 2016). When consumers in wealthy states buy goods from developing countries, this is often similar to consciously receiving stolen goods. Legitimate resource sales require general agreement from citizens. Evidence of agreement requires that: (i) owners must be informed about sales, (ii) owners must be able to express dissent freely should they have doubts about sales, and (iii) owners should be able to stop resource sales without fearing grave consequences such as violence and intimidation. Wenar aims to outlaw dispossession of citizens’ resources by promoting various practices that would satisfy these conditions and promote clean trade (Wenar 2016).

For various reasons (including strategic ones) Thomas Pogge and Leif Wenar do not directly challenge the right of nations to own resources on their territories. Policy recommendations, are much more likely to be effective if they can fit within the main structures of international conventions. However, other theorists do take up this issue including Hillel Steiner (2005), Tim Hayward (2005) and Mathias Risse (2005, 2012b). Steiner argues that all inhabitants of the world are entitled to an equal share in the value of all land and he advocates for the “Global Fund” which aims to ensure that equal share entitlements can be secured. The Global Fund would constitute a clearing house for payments and disbursements (Steiner 2005).

Appealing to accounts of ownership of resources, some philosophers draw out important implications for diverse global justice debates. Mathias Risse argues that we all, collectively, own the resources of the earth and this has profound implications for a range of global justice issues, including immigration. When people are under-utilizing their “rightful shares” of territory, they cannot complain when co-owners would like to occupy some of it. Some theorists concerned with environmental issues also discuss our rights with respect to natural resources. Some argue that we have equal rights to access the earth’s resources. Tim Hayward, for instance, argues that we have equal rights to ecological space (Hayward 2005). This is often appealed to when there is a perception that we have exceeded our share, such as in levels of carbon emissions and consumption more generally.

Accounts according to which we have equal rights to resources, land, ecological space and so on, are often accused of suffering from an important common problem. It is difficult to defend a clear and compelling account of the value of resources as these can vary considerably in different social, cultural and technological contexts. But we need to be able to quantify resource values to some plausible extent, if we are to determine whether people are enjoying or exceeding their equal shares (Armstrong 2017).

Others defend territorial sovereignty for other reasons. Some, like Cara Nine argue that collectives have a right to territory when they “establish legitimate, minimal conditions for justice within a geographical region” (Nine 2012, 2022). While Anna Stilz argues that states allow people to associate in specific geographical locations and realize economic, social, and cultural values free from interference as long as they respect others’ rights to associate as well (Stilz 2019). She defends collective self-determination that represents subjects’ political will and ensures self-directed agency and non-alienation where this is compatible with global justice. Stilz maintains that actual states only have a legitimate right to territory if they have rightful occupancy, implement a system of basic justice, and represent the shared will of most inhabitants. But, even when they do not, she thinks states can be justified in ruling a territory if they are the only available way of providing decent rule or changing their boundaries will jeopardize urgent interests or come with high costs (Stilz 2019).

Others argue against territorial sovereignty or for reconceiving sovereignty in a way that encourages respect for human rights and can limit our tendency towards war, coercion, inequality and collective action problems (Chatterjee 2011; Held 1995). Some maintain that all who are affected by states’ actions should have a say in their rules while others reject this conclusion. For discussion, see Buchanan and Keohane 2011. For other important work on territory, see the entry on territorial rights and territorial justice .

There are a number of global justice problems that need to be addressed, and this raises the issue of how to allocate responsibilities fairly. Who should do what to reduce global injustices? Several different agents, groups, organizations and institutions could play a role. Which responsibilities should devolve to corporations, governments, consumers, citizens, international organizations or social movements? Some frequently discussed proposals focus on agents’ contributions to a problem, their patterns of benefit from the problem, and their capacity to take constructive action now. Two influential frameworks deserve more extended treatment, notably that of Iris Marion Young concerning a social connection model for allocating responsibilities for structural injustice and that of David Miller concerning remedial responsibility (Young 2011; Miller 2007).

In contrast to the idea of responsibility as involving finding fault and individual liability, Iris Marion Young develops a forward-looking model which she argues is more appropriate. She draws on the idea that participation via institutions sometimes produces injustice, so we have particular responsibilities to address injustice. We share responsibility for addressing injustice but we may have different degrees and kinds of responsibility. She offers different parameters of reasoning that can help individuals and organizations decide what might make the most sense for them to do in efforts to remedy injustice, given that there are so many injustices, whereas time and resources are limited. Using the case study of the global apparel industry she illustrates how the fact that we are positioned differently can entail varying but important responsibilities for all who participate in activities that sustain sweatshops. There are at least four parameters that agents can use in their reasoning:

• Power: we have different levels of influence and capacities to change processes. We should focus on those areas where we have greater capacities to change worrisome structural processes. This might mean focusing on a few key players who have both greater capacity to make changes themselves and to influence others.
• Privilege: some people have more privilege than others in relation to structures. So middle-class clothing consumers have more discretionary income, choice and ability to absorb costs – they can change their clothing purchasing practices more easily than those who earn minimum wage, have little discretionary income, and little ability to absorb further costs.
• Interest: All who have an interest in changing oppressive structures have responsibilities in connection with remedying these. This entails that “victims” too have important responsibilities since they have a great interest in eliminating oppression. In a nuanced analysis she argues that they might have responsibilities in certain contexts, such as to speak out about the harsh conditions in which they work. They must take some responsibility for resisting and challenging the structures. Without their participation the need for reforms may be rationalized away or reforms may not take the required form. These obligations may not always exist, especially when the costs of resistance would require extraordinary sacrifices.
• Collective ability: In some cases we already have collective organization capacities and resources that are well established. Sometimes it just makes good practical sense to draw on these. So, for instance, sometimes student associations, faith-based organizations, unions, or stockholder groups already exercise significant power in being able to coordinate like-minded members who are willing to take certain actions. She encourages us to harness organizational resources where doing so would prove effective.

In summary, Young encourages us to think about how we can best take responsibility for reducing structural injustice by reflecting on these four parameters – different positions of power, privilege, interest and collective ability. (For comprehensive review of the merits of Young’s approach see McKeown 2018, 2021.)

David Miller offers a tremendously influential connection theory of responsibility that also discusses our remedial responsibilities. There are six ways in which we can be connected to someone, P, who needs help and so be held remedially responsible for assisting. These connections give rise to six ways in which remedial responsibility can be identified. We might be morally responsible for P’s condition; we might be outcome or causally responsible for P’s condition; we might have had no causal role in their condition but have benefited from it; we might have capacity to assist P; or we might be connected to P through ties of community. [ 4 ]

There is a huge literature on taking responsibility for remedying or preventing future global injustice, including discussing the merits of these two dominant approaches. For some other innovative contributions see, for instance, Barry and Overland 2016, Dahan, Lerner and Milman-Sivan 2023, 2016, McKeown 2018, 2021, Brock 2023.

More recently attention has focused on what those on the receiving end of injustice may permissibly do. Alejandra Mancilla (2016) argues that the needy can take what they need and use material resources for self preservation even if that requires taking from others. In doing so she expands on James Sterba’s earlier arguments against libertarians for similar conclusions (Sterba 2008, 1996). Also see (Cabrera 2004). Others like Cecil Fabre, Johan Olsthoorn, and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen argue that sometimes poor states may wage war on the affluent for subsistence (Lipper-Rasmussen 2013; Fabre 2016; Olsthoorn 2021). [Some, like Peter Unger and Gerhart Øverland argue that it is acceptable to force others to assist in poverty-alleviation under at least some circumstances (Unger 1996; Øverland 2009)].

In the global justice literature, there are also important concerns about the distribution of responsibilities among collective and individual agents. Prominently, can we hold nations responsible for global injustices or remedying such injustices? This raises important questions about collective responsibility that are well treated elsewhere in this encyclopedia (see the entry on collective responsibility ).

Is it possible to have global justice in the absence of a world state? Hobbes argues that this is not possible since there is no global authority that can secure and enforce the requirements of justice. He presents the classic so-called realist case, which is highly influential in international politics, such that there is a state of nature in the international realm. All states compete in pursuing their own advantage and since there is no global authority there can be no justice in international affairs. Also for an overview of some key work on realism in political philosophy, see the entry on political realism in international relations and Rossi and Sleat 2014.

Others are more optimistic. Since we already have a high level of interaction among states, organizations and other agents, this has generated various norms and expectations about appropriate conduct that guides behavior in the international sphere (Beitz 1999). Moreover, we have a strong interest in co-operation when this is necessary to deal practically with a range of problems that have global reach. Global governance is concerned with how we manage interests affecting the residents of more than one state in the absence of a world state. There is already a high level of co-operation among a variety of networks, organizations and other groups of interested parties at the sub-state level, and this is powerfully influencing the redesign of best practice norms in particular domains (Slaughter 2004). Some argue for a global state or democratic system – often with subsidiarity or some kind of poly-centric political order, and others argue for more limited forms of legitimate global governance (Cabrera 2018; Gould 2004, 2014; Held 2004; Kuper 2004; Buchanan and Keohane 2006).

Other change agents that can and have exercised considerable reform pressures include global social movements, such as the anti-sweatshop movement, the fair trade movement, and other ethical consumption movements. Global activism has been an important source of incremental change. These simple examples show that much more is possible in the absence of a world state than realists acknowledge.

For more on issues of world government, see the entry on world government , which provides extended treatment of this issue.

Philosophers are contributing in important ways to discussions of global justice policy issues. As illustrations, in this entry we have canvassed several institutional reform proposals for addressing global injustices which have enjoyed widespread attention, both within the academy and beyond. These include Thomas Pogge’s Health Impact Fund and Nicole Hassoun’s Global Health Impact proposals ( Section 9 ) along with Pogge’s proposal for a Global Resources Dividend ( Section 10.1 ), Christian Barry and Sanjay Reddy’s Just Linkage Proposal to help improve working conditions ( Section 4 ), Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane’s institutional innovations to secure accountability in the use of military force ( Section 3.2 ), and the innovative work of Leif Wenar concerning proposals for clean trade ( Section 10.1 ).

In addition to those illustrations already highlighted in this article, philosophers are having an impact on policy discussions in a wide range of areas including climate change and contributing ideas to the Human Development Reports (United Nations Development Programme 2020, United Nations Development Programme 2022). They have contributed to influential international multi-disciplinary projects that seek alternative ways to measure quality of health, life or poverty (Nussbaum and Sen 1993, Esposito and Hassoun 2017, Wisor et al. 2014). Philosophers have also discussed rampant abusive tax practices by corporations and wealthy individuals and how this deprives developing countries of much-needed income for human development in developing countries (Brock 2009). There are also important discussions of global income taxes, carbon taxes, financial transaction taxes and Tobin Taxes (Moellendorf 2009; Caney 2005b; Brock 2009). The pervasive problems associated with corruption have been attracting increased attention (Wenar 2016; Brock 2023). So, philosophers continue to make an important contribution to policy debates and this is also likely to be an area in which important future work on global justice will concentrate.

Philosophers are also engaging in more interdisciplinary research and global justice theorists sometimes do experimental or more broadly empirical philosophy (Miller 2001; Appiah 2007; Hassoun 2009b, 2014; Lindauer 2020; Lindauer et al. 2023; Buckland et al. 2022; Pölzler and Hannikainen 2022). Furthermore, there is some sophisticated work in related disciplines and there is significant room for fruitful interdisciplinary future research (Cappelen, Fest, Sørensen and Tungodden 2020).

Philosophers also play central roles in methodological innovation, which can in turn play an important role in informing debates about theory and public policy. As one prominent example of the contributions of new global justice methodologies, it is worth noting the emergence of “Engaged Theorizing” (see website listed under internet resources), especially in the global justice context (Ackerly 2018; Deveaux 2015, 2021; Cabrera 2010; Lu 2017; Rafanelli 2021; Reed-Sandoval 2020). Such approaches take lived experience, social action campaigns, and justice movements as the central important starting point for normative theorizing. Using interpretive, qualitative, and normative analysis, engaged political theorists try to align political philosophy with the questions, goals, and needs of communities seeking social justice. In these ways there have been important new attempts to bring philosophy to bear on our contemporary global realities, with significant progress made in bridging the divisions between theory and practice.

• Abizadeh, A., 2007, “Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (not site) of Distributive Justice,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 35(4): 318–358.
• –––, 2010, “Citizenship, Immigration and Boundaries,” in Ethics and World Politics, Duncan Bell (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 358–376.
• Ackerly, B., 2018, Just Responsibility : A Human Rights Theory of Global Justice, Oxford University Press.
• Altman, A. and C.H. Wellman, 2009, A Liberal Theory of International Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Anderson, E.S., 1999, “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics , 109(2): 287–337.
• Appiah, K.A., 2007, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time) , New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• –––, 2007, The Ethics of Identity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Aquinas, T. “ Summa Theologiae IIaIIae 40: On war,” in Aquinas: Political Writings , (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought), R.W. Dyson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 239–247.
• Armstrong, C., 2017, Climate Change and Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2019, Why Global Justice Matters: Moral Progress in a Divided World , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• –––, 2022, A Blue New Deal: Why We Need a New Politics for the Ocean , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Athanasiou, T., C. Holz, and S. Kartha, 2022, “Fair Shares – Lessons from Practice, Thoughts on Strategy,” Climate Equity Reference Project. [ Athanasiou et al. 2022 available online ].
• Atuire, C., and N. Hassoun, 2023, “Rethinking Solidarity towards Equity in Global Health: African Views,” International Journal for Equity in Health , 22(1): 52.
• Banai, A. M. Ronzoni and C. Schemmel (eds.), 2011, Social Justice, Global Dynamics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives , Abingdon: Routledge.
• Barry, B. and R. Goodin (eds.), 1992, Free Movement: Ethical Issues in the Transnational Migration of People and Money , University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Barry, C., B. Herman and L. Tomitova (eds.), 2007, Dealing Fairly with Developing Country Debt , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Barry, C. and T. Pogge (eds.), 2005, Global Institutions and Responsibilities: Achieving Global Justice, Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
• Barry, C. and S. Reddy, 2008, International Trade and Labor Standards , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Barry, C. and G. Overland, 2016, Responding to Global Poverty: Harm, Responsibility, and Agency , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Barry, C. and K. MacDonald, 2018, “Ethical Consumerism: A Defense of Market Vigilantism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 46(3): 293–322.
• Bass, G.J., 2004, “Jus Post Bellum,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 32(4): 384–412.
• Baylis, F., and N. Kofler, 2020a, “A Public Health Ethic Should Inform Policies On COVID-19 Immunity Passports,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases , 21(4): 456.
• –––, 2020b, “Ten Reasons Why Immunity Passports Are a Bad Idea,” Nature , 581(7809): 379–381.
• Beitz, C., 1975, “Justice and International Relations,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 4(4): 360–389.
• –––, 1999, Political Theory and International Relations , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2009, The Idea of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Beitz, C. and R. Goodin, 2009, Global Basic Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bell, D., 2010, Ethics and World Politics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, (ed.), 2019, Empire, Race and Global Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Benatar, S. and G. Brock, (ed.), 2011, Global Health and Global Health Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Benatar, S. and G. Brock, (ed.), 2021, Global Health: Ethical Challenges , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Berkey, B., 2021, “Ethical Consumerism, Democratic Values, and Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 49(3): 237–274.
• Bertram, C., 2018, Do States Have the Right to Exclude Immigrants? (Political Theory Today) , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Blake, M., 2001, “Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 30(3): 257–296.
• –––, 2013, Justice and Foreign Policy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, Justice, Migration, and Mercy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Blake, M. and P.T. Smith, 2013, “International Distributive Justice,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/international-justice/>.
• Blomfield, M., 2019, Global Justice, Natural Resources and Climate Change , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2021, “Land as a Global Commons?” Journal of Applied Philosophy . doi:10.1111/japp.12550
• Bohman, J., 2007, Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi , Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
• Boxill, B.R., 2009, Global Equality of Opportunity and National Integrity, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Bramble, B., 2020, Pandemic Ethics: 8 Big Questions of COVID-19 , Wilmington: Bartleby Books.
• Brock, G., 2006, “Humanitarian Intervention: Closing the Gap Between Theory and Practice,” Journal of Applied Philosophy , 23(3): 277–291.
• –––, 2009, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2010, “Recent Work on Rawls’s Law of Peoples : Critics versus Defenders,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 47(1): 85–101.
• –––, (ed.), 2013, Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism: Critiques, Defenses, Reconceptualization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2020, Justice for People on the Move: Migration in Challenging Times , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2023, Corruption and Global Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brock, G. and M. Blake, 2015, Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brock, G. and H. Brighouse (eds.), 2005, The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brock, G. and D. Moellendorf (eds.), 2005, Current Debates in Global Justice , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Brooks, T. (ed.), 2008, The Global Justice Reader , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• –––, (ed.), 2020, The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice , Oxford Handbooks, Oxford: Oxford Academics.
• –––, 2020, Climate Change Ethics for an Endangered World, New York: Routledge.
• Brown, G. and D. Held (eds.), 2010, The Cosmopolitan Reader , Cambridge: Polity.
• Buchanan, A., 1997, “Theories of Secession,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 26(1): 31–61.
• –––, 2004, Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Buchanan, A. and R. Keohane, 2004, “The Preventive Use of Force: A Cosmopolitan Institutional Proposal,” Ethics and International Affairs , 18(1): 1–22.
• –––, 2006, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions,” Ethics and International Affairs , 20(4): 405–437.
• Buckland, L., et al., 2022, “Testing the Motivational Strength of Positive and Negative Duty Arguments Regarding Global Poverty,” Review of Philosophy and Psychology , 13: 699–717.
• Buckinx, B., J. Trejo-Mathys, and T. Waligore, 2015a, Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual Historical and Institutional Perspectives , New York: Routledge
• –––, 2015b, Domination Across Borders , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2019, “Foreign Policy and Domination: Licensing the State,” in The State and Cosmopolitan Responsibilities , Beardsworth, R., Brown, G. W., and R Shapcott (eds), Oxford: Oxford Academic.
• Budolfson, M., 2015, “Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices,” in Philosophy Comes to Dinner, M.C. Haltema, T. Cuneo, and A. Chignell (eds.), New York: Routledge.
• Butt, D., 2008, Rectifying International Injustice: Principles of Compensation and Restitution Between Nations , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Caney, S., 2005a, “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change,” Leiden Journal of International Law , 18(4): 747–775.
• –––, 2005b, Justice Beyond Borders , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2008, “Global Distributive Justice and the State,” Political Studies , 57(3): 487–518.
• –––, 2020, “Climate Justice,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-climate/>.
• –––, 2022, “Global Climate Governance, Short-Termism, and the Vulnerability of Future Generations,” Ethics & International Affairs , 36(2): 137–155.
• Cabrera L., 2004, Political Theory of Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Case for the World State, New York: Routledge. Cappelen, A., Fest, S., Sørensen, E., and Tungodden, B., 2020, “Choice and Personal Responsibility: What Is a Morally Relevant Choice?,” The Review of Economics and Statistics , 104: 1–35.
• Cabrera, L., 2010, The Practice of Global Citizenship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, (ed.), 2018. Institutional Cosmopolitanism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2020, The Humble Cosmopolitan: Rights, Diversity and Trans-State Democracy , Oxford. Oxford University Press.
• Carens, J., 1987, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” The Review of Politics , 49(2): 251–273.
• –––, 2013, The Ethics of Immigration , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chatterjee, D. (ed.), 2004, The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ––– (ed)., 2011, The Encyclopedia of Global Justice , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Chatterjee, D. and D. Scheid, 2003, Ethics and Foreign Intervention , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Coady, T. and M. O’Keefe (eds.) 2002, Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World , Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
• Cohen, J., 2010, “Philosophy, Social Science, Global Poverty,” Thomas Pogge and His Critics , A. Jaggar (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 18–45.
• Cohen, J. and C. Sabel, 2006, “Extra Republicam Nulla Justitia?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 34: 147–175.
• Cole, P., 2000, Philosophies of Exclusion: Liberal Political Theory and Immigration , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Cripps, E., 2022, What Climate Justice Means and Why We Should Care , New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Cruft, R., S.M. Liao, and M. Renzo (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Culp, J., 2014, Global Justice and Development , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• –––, 2020a, “Educational Justice,” Philosophy Compass 15: 1–12.
• –––, 2020b, “Special Issue on Global Justice and Education,” Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric , 12(1): i–ii.
• Dahan, Y., H. Lerner, and F. Milman-Sivan, 2016, Global Justice and International Labour Rights, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2023, “Shared Responsibility and Labor Rights in Global Supply Chains,” Journal of Business Ethics , 182(4): 1025–1040.
• Daniels, N., 2007, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2011, “International Health Inequalities and Global Justice: Towards a Middle Ground” in Global Health and Global Health Ethics , S. Benatar and G. Brock (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–107.
• de Bres, H., 2016, “Justice and International Trade,” Philosophy Compass , 11(10): 570–579.
• Deveaux, M., 2015, “The Global Poor as Agents of Justice,” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 12(2): 125–150.
• –––, 2021, Poverty, Solidarity and Poor-Led Social Movements , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dobson, A., 1998, Justice and the Environment , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Doyle, M., 2008, Striking First: Pre-emption and Prevention in Interventional Conflict , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, 2001, “Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases”. Geneva: Médecins Sans Frontières.
• Dryzek, J., 2006, Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Eckenwiler, L.A., 2009, “Care Worker Migration and Transnational Justice,” Public Health Ethics , 2(2): 171–183.
• Emanuel, E., et al., 2004, “What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases , 189: 930–937.
• –––, 2020, “An Ethical Framework for Global Vaccine Allocation,” Science , 369(6509): 1309–1312.
• –––, 2021, “On the Ethics of Vaccine Nationalism: The Case of Fair Priority for Residents Framework,” Ethics & International Affairs , 35(4): 543–562.
• Esposito, L. and N. Hassoun, 2017, “Measuring health burden without discriminating against the disabled,” Journal of Public Health , 39(3): 633–639.
• Etinson, A., 2018, Human Rights: Moral or Political , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fabre, C., 2016, Cosmopolitan Peace , Oxford University Press.
• Ferguson, K., and A. Caplan, 2021, “Love Thy Neighbor? Allocating vaccines in a world of competing obligations,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 47: 1–4.
• Flory, J.H., and P. Kitcher, 2004, “Global Health and the Scientific Research Agenda,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 32(1): 36–65.
• Fleurbaey, M., 2008, Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, S., 2006, “The Law of Peoples, Social Cooperation, Human Rights and Distributive Justice,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 23(1): 29–68.
• Gardiner, S., 2011, A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gardiner, S., S. Caney, D. Jamieson, H. Shue, and R.K. Pachauri (eds.), 2010, Climate Ethics: Essential Readings , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gehring, V. (ed.), 2003, War after September 11 , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Gheaus, A., 2013, “Care Drain: Who Should Provide for the Children Left Behind?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 16(1): 1–23.
• –––, 2013, “The Feasibility Constraint on The Concept of Justice”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 63(252): 445–464.
• Gilabert, P., 2012, From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gilabert, P., and Lawford-Smith, H., 2012, Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration. Political Studies , 60(4), 809–825.
• Goodin, R., 1988, “What Is So Special About Our Fellow Countrymen?” Ethics , 98(4): 663–686.
• Gosseries, A., 2004, “Historical Emissions and Free-Riding,” Ethical Perspectives , 11(1): 36–60.
• Gould, C., 2004, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2014, Interactive Democracy: The Social Roots of Global Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2018, “Solidarity and the Problem of Structural Injustice in Healthcare,” Bioethics , 9(32): 541–552.
• Hassoun, N., 2008, “Free Trade, Poverty, and the Environment,” Public Affairs Quarterly , 22(4): 353–380.
• –––, 2009a, “Free Trade and the Environment,” Environmental Ethics , 31(1): 51–66.
• –––, 2009b, “Meeting Needs,” Utilitas , 2(3): 250–275.
• –––, 2011, “Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality,” The Journal of Moral Philosophy , 8(1): 5–44.
• –––, 2012, Globalization and Global Justice: Shrinking Distance, Expanding Obligations , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2014, “Global Justice and Charity: A Brief for a New Approach to Empirical Philosophy,” Philosophy Compass , 9(12): 884–893.
• –––, 2018, “Consumption and Social Change,” Economics & Philosophy , 35(1): 29–47.
• –––, 2019, “Global Justice: What is Necessary to Legitimate Coercion,” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 16(3): 563–589.
• –––, 2020, Global Health Impact: Extending Access on Essential Medicines for the Poor , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2021, “Against Vaccine Nationalism,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 47(11): 773–774.
• Hayward, T., 2005, Constitutional Environmental Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Held, D., 1995, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance , Cambridge: Polity.
• –––, 2004, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus , Cambridge: Polity.
• Held, V., 2008, How Terrorism is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2010, “Terrorism,” in Ethics and World Politics , D. Bell (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 342–357.
• Herlitz, A., et al., 2021, “Just Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines,” BMJ Global Health , 6.
• Hessler, K., 2005, “Resolving Interpretive Conflicts in International Human Rights Law,” The Journal of Political Philosophy , 13(1): 29–52.
• Hidalgo, J., 2021, “Open Borders,” in Living Ethics: An Introduction with Readings , R. Shafer-Landau, (2nd ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hobbes, T., 1651, Leviathan, in R. Tuck (ed.), Hobbes: Leviation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Holder, C., and D. Reidy (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hountondji, P.J., 1997, Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails , Senegal: CODESRIA.
• Hussain, W., 2012, “Is Ethical Consumerism an Impermissible Form of Vigilantism?” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 40(2): 111–143.
• Hutchings, K., 2019, “Decolonizing Global Ethics: Thinking with the Pluriverse,” Ethics and International Affairs , 33(2): 115–125.
• Ignatieff, M., 2003, Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan , London: Penguin.
• International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001, The Responsibility to Protect , Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
• Jaggar, A., 2005a, “‘Saving Anima’: Global Justice for Women and Intercultural Dialogue,” in Real World Justice , A. Follesdal and T. Pogge (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 37–63.
• –––, 2005b, “What Is Terrorism, Why Is It Wrong, and Could It Ever Be Morally Permissible?” Journal of Social Philosophy , 36(2): 202–217.
• –––, 2009, “Transnational Cycles of Gendered Vulnerability: A Prologue to a Theory of Global Gender Justice,” Philosophical Topics , 37(2): 33–52.
• –––, 2013, “Does Poverty Wear a Women’s Face? Some Moral Dimensions of a Transnational Feminist Research,” Hypatia , 28(2): 240–256.
• –––, 2020, “Decolonizing Anglo-American Political Philosophy: The Case of Migration Justice,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 94(1): 87–113.
• Jaggar, A. (ed.), 2010, Thomas Pogge and his Critics , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2014, Gender and Global Justice, Malden: Polity.
• –––, 2020, “Global gender justice,” in The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice . T. Brooks (ed.), Oxford Handbooks, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• James, A., 2012, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jecker, N.S., 2022, “Vaccine Passports and Health Disparities: A Perilous Journey,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 48: 957–960.
• Jecker, N.S., A.G. Wightman, and D.S. Diekema, forthcoming, “Vaccine Ethics: An Ethical Framework for Global Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines,” Journal of Medical Ethics .
• Kant, I., 1795, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” in H. Reiss (ed.), Kant: Political Writings , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Khader, S., 2011, Adaptive preferences and Women’s Empowerment , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2014, “Empowerment Through Self-Subordination? Microcredit and Women’s Agency,” in Poverty, Agency, and Human Rights , D.T. Meyers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–248.
• –––, 2018, Decolonizing Universalism: A Transnational Feminist Ethic , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kleingeld, P. and E. Brown, 2013, “Cosmopolitanism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/cosmopolitanism/>.
• Knight, C., 2009, Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Kukathas, C. 2021, Immigration and Freedom , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Kuper, A, 2004, Democracy Beyond Borders: Justice and Representation in Global Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005a, Global Responsibilities: Who Must Deliver on Human Rights? New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2005b, “Global Poverty Relief: More than Charity,” in Global Responsibilities: Who Must Deliver on Human Rights? , A. Kuper (ed.), New York: Routledge, pp. 155–172.
• Lang, A., 2010, “Humanitarian Intervention,” in Ethics and World Politics , D. Bell (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 324–341.
• Lauer, H., 2017, Global Justice as Process: Applying Normative Ideals of Indigenous African Governance , New York: Routledge.
• Lenard, P. T., 2012, Trust, Democracy, and Multicultural Challenges . University Park: Penn State University Press.
• Lenard, P.T., C. Straehle, (eds.), 2012, Health Inequalities and Global Justice , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Lichtenberg, J., 2013, Distant Strangers: Ethics, Psychology, and Global Poverty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lindauer, M., 2020. “Experimental Philosophy and the Fruitfulness of Normative Concepts,” Philosophical Studies , 177(8): 2129–2152.
• Lindauer, M. et al., 2023, “Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior,” Judgment and Decision Making , 15(3): 413–420.
• Lippert-Rasmussen, K., 2013, “Global Injustice and Redistributive Wars,” Law, Ethics and Philosophy , 1: 65–86.
• Liu, Y., S. Salwi, and B.C. Drolet, 2020, “Multivalue Ethical Framework for Fair Global Allocation of a COVID-19 Vaccine,” Journal of Medical Ethics , 46: 499–501.
• Lister, M., 2010, “Citizenship, in the Immigration Context,” University of Maryland Law Review , 70 (175).
• London, A., 2011, “Justice and Research in Developing Countries,” in Global Health and Global Health Ethics , S. Benatar and G. Brock (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 293–303.
• Lu, C., 2012, “World Government,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/world-government/>.
• –––, 2016, “Colonialism as Structural Injustice,” in Political Theory without Borders , R. Goodin and J. Fishkin (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2017, Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Luban, D., 1980, “Just War and Human Rights,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 9(2): 160–181.
• Macdonald, T., 2015, “Political legitimacy in international border governance institutions,” European Journal of Political Theory , 14(4): 409–428.
• Malm, A., 2021, How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire , New York: Verso.
• Mancilla, A., 2016, The Right of Necessity: Moral Cosmopolitanism and Global Poverty (Off the Fence: Morality, Politics, and Society) , Washington D.C.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Mandle, J., 2006, Global Justice , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Margalit, A. and J, Raz, 1990, “National Self-Determination,” Journal of Philosophy , 87(9): 439–461.
• Martin, R. and D. Reidy, 2006, Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia? Malden: Blackwell.
• McKeown, M., 2021, “Structural Injustice”, Philosophy Compass , 16(7): 1–14.
• –––, 2018, “Iris Marion Young’s ‘Social Connection Model of Responsibility’”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 49(3): 484–502.
• McKim, R. and J. McMahan (eds.), 1997, The Morality of Nationalism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• McKinnon, C., 2022, Climate Change and Political Theory , Cambridge: Polity.
• McMahan, J., 2005, “Just Cause for War,” Ethics and International Affairs , 19(3): 55–75.
• –––, 2009, Killing in War , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mehta, U., 1999, Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mellow, D., 2006, “Iraq: A Morally Justified War,” Journal of Applied Philosophy , 23(3): 293–310.
• Menkiti, I., 2017, “Africa and Global Justice,” Philosophical Papers , 46(1): 13–32.
• Metz, T., 2017, “Replacing Development: An Afro-communal Approach to Global Justice,” Philosophical Papers , 46(1): 111–137.
• Meyer, L., 2021, “Intergenerational Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/justice-intergenerational/>.
• Meyer, L., and A. Gosseries, 2009, Intergenerational Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J.S., 1859, “A Few Words on Non-Intervention,” [ Available online ].
• Mills, C., 1997, The Racial Contract , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, “Race and Global Justice,” in Empire, Race and Global Justice , D. Bell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Miller, D., 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Distributing Responsibilities,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 9 (4): 453–471.
• –––, 2001, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, “Immigration: The Case for Limits,” in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics , A. Cohen and C. Wellman (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 193–206.
• –––, 2007, Nationalism and Global Responsibility , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2020, The Political Philosophy of Refuge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Miller, R., 1998, “Cosmopolitan Respect and Patriotic Concern,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 27(3): 202–224.
• –––, 2010, Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Miscevic, N., 2010, “Nationalism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/nationalism/>.
• Moellendorf, D., 1996, “Constructing the Law of Peoples,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 77(2): 132–154.
• –––, 2002, Cosmopolitan Justice , Boulder, CO: Westview.
• –––, 2005, “The World Trade Organization and Egalitarian Justice,” Metaphilosophy , 36(1-2): 145–162.
• –––, 2008, “Jus Ex Bello” Journal of Political Philosophy , 16(2): 123–136.
• –––, 2009a, “Treaty Norms and Climate Change Mitigation,” Ethics and International Affairs , 23(3): 247–265.
• –––, 2009b, Global Inequality Matters , Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• –––, 2022, Mobilizing Hope: Climate Change and Global Poverty , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Moellendorf, D., and Widdows, H. (Eds.), 2015, The Routledge Handbook of Global Ethics (1st ed.), New York: Routledge.
• Moore, M., 2001, The Ethics of Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Justice and Colonialism,” Philosophy Compass , 11(8): 447–461.
• Morgan, M., 2020, Care Ethics and the Refugee Crisis: Emotions, Contestation, and Agency , New York: Routledge.
• Moseley, A., 2014, “Just War Theory,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.), available online .
• Nagel, T., 2005, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33(2): 113–147.
• Nickel, J., 2007, Making Sense of Human Rights , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2014, “Human Rights,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/rights-human/>.
• Nine, C., 2012, Global Justice and Territory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2022, Sharing Territories: Overlapping Self-Determination and Resource Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nowicka, M. and M. Rovisco (eds.), 2011, The Ashgate Research Companion to Cosmopolitanism , Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Nussbaum, M., 1995, “Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings,” in Women, Culture and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities , M. Nussbaum and J. Glover (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–104.
• –––, 1996, “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” in For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , J. Cohen (ed.), Boston, MA: Beacon Press, pp. 3–17.
• –––, 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2006, Frontiers of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Political liberalism and global justice,” Journal of Global Ethics , 11(1): 68–79.
• Nussbaum, M. and A. Sen (eds.), 1993, Quality of Life , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Oberman, K., 2013, “Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions?” Ethics , 123(3): 427–455.
• Oberman, K., S. Fine, and L. Ypi (eds.), 2016, Immigration As A Human Right , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ohlin, J.D., 2014, “Justice After War,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War , S. Lazar and H. Frowe (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Okeja, U., 2019, African Philosophy and Global Justice : Critical Essays, New York: Routledge.
• Olsthoorn, J., 2021, The Right to Wage Private Wars of Subsistence: Its Nature, Grounds, and Place in Revisionist Just War Theories , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• O’Neill, O., 1987, “Rights, Obligations and World Hunger,” in Poverty and Social Justice: Critical Perspectives: A Pilgrimage Toward Our Own Humanity , F. Jimenes (ed.), Tempe, AZ: Bilingual Press, pp. 86–100.
• –––, 2005, “The Dark Side of Human Rights,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944 , 81(2): 427–439.
• Okin, S., 1994, “Gender Inequality and Cultural Differences,” Political Theory , 22(1): 5–24.
• Orend, B., 2008, “War,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/>.
• Owen, D., 2020, What Do We Owe to Refugees? (Political Theory Today) , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Øverland, G., 2009, “Forced Assistance,” Law and Philosophy , 28(2), 203–232.
• Parekh, S., 2017, Refugees and the Ethics of Forced Displacement , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2020, No refuge: Ethics and the Global Refugee Crisis , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Parekh, S., and S. Wilcox., 2018, “Feminist Perspectives on Globalization,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/feminism-globalization/>.
• Parker, W., 2018, “Climate Science”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/climate-science/>.
• Persad, G., and E. Emanuel, 2020, “The Ethics of COVID-19 Immunity-Based Licenses (”Immunity Passports“),” JAMA , 323(22): 2241–2242.
• Pfaffe, T., 2020, “Resolving Ethical Challenges in an Era of Persistent Conflict”, Carlisle, PA: Army War College. [ Pfaffe 2020 available online ]
• Pogge, T., 1992, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty” Ethics 103(1): 48–75.
• –––, 1994, “An Egalitarian Law of Peoples”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 23(3): 195–224.
• –––, 2001, “Priorities of Global Justice” Metaphilosophy , 32(1/2): 6–24.
• –––, 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• –––, 2004, “‘Assisting’ the Global Poor,” in The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy , D. Chatterjee (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008 World Poverty and Human Rights , Cambridge: Polity Press (second edition).
• –––, 2010, “Responses to the Critics” in Thomas Pogge and His Critics , A. Jaggar (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 175–250.
• –––, 2013, “Concluding Reflections” in Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism , G. Brock (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 294–320.
• –––, 2014, “Gender Sensitive Multi-Dimensional Poverty Measurement: A Participatory Proposal” in Oxford Handbook of Well-being and Public Policy , M. Fleurbaey and M. Adler (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pogge, T. and K. Horton (eds.) 2008, Global Ethics: Seminal Essays , St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
• Pogge, T. and D. Moellendorf (eds.) 2008, Global Justice: Seminal Essays , St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
• Pogge, T., and M. Sengupta, 2016, “Assessing the sustainable development goals from a human rights perspective,” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , 32(2): 83–97.
• Pölzler, T., and I.R. Hannikainen, 2022, “The Typicality Effect in Basic Needs,” Synthese , 200(5): 382.
• Primoratz, I., 2013, Terrorism: A Philosophical Investigation , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Rafanelli, L.M., 2021, Promoting Justice Across Borders: The Ethics of Reform Intervention , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J., 1999, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Reed-Sandoval, A., 2020, Socially Undocumented: Identity and Immigration Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Reidy, D., 2004, “Rawls on International Justice: A Defense” Political Theory 32: 291–319.
• Reitan, E., 2018, Personal Pacifism and Conscientious Objection , New York: Routledge.
• Risse, M., 2005, “How Does the Global Order Harm the Poor ?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 349–376.
• –––, 2012a, On Global Justice . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2012b, Global Political Philosophy , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Risse, M. and G. Wollner, 2019, On Trade Justice: A Philosophical Plea for a New Global Deal , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rodin, D., 2008, “Two Emerging Issues in Jus Post Bellum: War Termination and the Liability of Soldiers for Crimes of Aggression,” in C. Stahn and J. Kleffner (eds.) Jus Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace , The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press, pp. 53–76.
• Ronzoni, M., 2013, “For (Some) Political and Institutional Cosmopolitanism, (Even if) Against Moral Cosmopolitanism,” in Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism , G. Brock (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–174.
• Rossi, E. and M. Sleat, 2014, “Realism in Normative Political Theory,” Philosophy Compass , 9: 689–701.
• Ryan, C.C., 1983, “Self-Defense, Pacifism, and the Possibility of Killing,” Ethics , 93(3): 508–524.
• Sager, A., 2018, Toward a Cosmopolitan Ethics of Mobility: The Migrant’s-Eye View of the World , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sangiovanni, A., 2007, “Global justice, reciprocity, and the state,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 35(1): 3–39.
• Savulescu, J., 2020, “Good Reasons to Vaccinate: Mandatory or Payment for Risk?” Journal of Medical Ethics , 47: 78–85.
• Sen, A., 1980 “Equality of What?” in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values , Vol. I, S. McMurrin (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1988, “The Concept of Development,” in Handbook of Development Economics , C. Hollis and T. Strinivasan (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 9–26.
• Sengupta, M., 2016, “Review Global Justice and Development. By Julian Culp. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014. 215 pp. ISBN 978-1-137-38992-3,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 19(4): 1065–1067.
• Shue, H., 1980, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and US Foreign Policy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2014, Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2021, The Pivotal Generation: Why We Have A Moral Responsibility to Slow Climate Change Right Now , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Singer, P., 1972, “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1: 229–43.
• –––, 2002, One World: The Ethics of Globalization , Melbourne: Text Publishing.
• Slaughter, A., 2004, A New World Order , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Song, S., 2018, Immigration and Democracy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Song, J., 2019, “Human Rights and Inequality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 47(4): 347–377.
• Sorell, T. and L. Cabrera (eds.), 2015. Microfinance, Rights and Global Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Steiner, H., 2005, “Territorial Justice and Global Redistribution,” in The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism , G. Brock and H. Brighouse (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–38.
• Sterba, J., 1996, Global Justice , Hoboken: Prentice-Hall.
• –––, 2008, “Welfare Libertarianism,” Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy , 50: 765–770.
• Stilz, A., 2015, “Decolonization and Self-Determination,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 32(1): 1–24.
• –––, 2019, Territorial Sovereignty: A Philosophical Exploration , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 10.
• Táíwò, O.O., 2022, Reconsidering Reparations , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–13.
• Tamir, Y., 1993, Liberal Nationalism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Tan, K., 2004, Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism and Patriotism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2007, “Colonialism, Reparations, and Global Justice,” in Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries , J. Miller and R. Kumar (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2008, “A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism,” Journal of Philosophy , 105(11): 665–690.
• –––, 2012, Justice, Institutions, and Luck , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, “The Demands of Global Justice,” Œconomia , 3: 665–679.
• Teichman, J., 1986, Pacificism and the Just War: A Philosophical Examination , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Unger, P., 1996, Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• United Nations General Assembly, 1948, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” [ available online ].
• United Nations Development Programme, 2020, “Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene,” [ available online ].
• –––, 2022, “Human Development Report 2021–2022: Uncertain Times, Unsettled Lives: Shaping our Future in a Transforming World,” [available online].
• Valdez, I., 2019, “Association, Reciprocity, and Emancipation,” in Empire, Race and Global Justice , D. Bell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Valentini, L., 2012, Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “On the Distinctive Procedural Wrong of Colonialism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 43(4): 158–91.
• Vanderheiden, S., 2008, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Vasanthakumar, A., 2022, The Ethics of Exile: A Political Theory of Diaspora , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Voigt, K., 2022, “COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?,” Public Health Ethics , 15(1): 51–63.
• Walker, M.U., 2006, Moral Repair: Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, A., 2014, “Do Moral Duties Arise from Global Trade,” Moral Philosophy and Politics , 1(2): 249–268.
• Walzer, M., 1981, “The Distribution of Membership,” in Boundaries: National Autonomy and Its Limits , P.G. Brown and H. Shue (eds.), Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
• –––, 1983, “Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality,” Philosophy , 59(229): 413–415.
• Watene, K., 2022, Indigenous Philosophy and Intergenerational Justice , UNU-UNEP Stockholm 50+ Anniversary chapter. [ Watene 2022 available ]
• Wellman, C.H., 2014, “Immigration,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/immigration/>.
• Wellman, C. H. and P. Cole, 2011, Debating the Ethics of Immigration: Is There a Right to Exclude ?, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Wenar, L., 2010, “Realistic Reform of International Trade in Resources” in Thomas Pogge and His Critics, A. Jaggar (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 123–150.
• –––, 2016, Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence and the Rules that Run the World , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Whyte, K.P., 2014, “Indigenous Women, Climate Change Impacts, and Collective Action,” Hypatia , 29(3): 599–616.
• Widdows, H., 2014, The Routledge Handbook of Global Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Wilcox, S., 2021, “Borders and Migration,” in Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy , A. Sveinsdóttir, and K.Q. Hall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford Academic.
• Wiredu, K., 1996, Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective , Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wisor, S., et al., 2014, “The Individual Deprivation Measure: A Gender-Sensitive Approach to Poverty Measurement,” [available online].
• Wolff, J., 2013, The Human Right to Health , New York: W.W Norton & Company.
• –––, 2000, Just and Unjust War: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations , New York: Basic Books, 3rd edition.
• Young, I., 2011, Responsibility for Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ypi, L., 2012, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013a, “Cosmopolitanism Without If and Without But,” in Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism , G. Brock (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75–91.
• –––, 2013b, “What’s Wrong with Colonialism?”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 41(2): 158–191.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
• Global Policy Forum
• Human Rights Watch
• JustWarTheory.com , maintained by Mark Rigstad, Oakland University.
• Engaged Theory Community
• Global Health Impact

capability approach | colonialism | corruption | cosmopolitanism | economics [normative] and economic justice | egalitarianism | exploitation | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on globalization | globalization | immigration | justice: distributive | justice: intergenerational | justice: international distributive | justice: transitional | nationalism | pacifism | patriotism | political realism: in international relations | Rawls, John | responsibility: collective | rights: human | secession | sovereignty | terrorism | war | well-being | world government

Copyright © 2023 by Gillian Brock < g . brock @ auckland . ac . nz > Nicole Hassoun < nhassoun @ binghamton . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Advertisement

Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2020
• Volume 12 , pages 511–546, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sujian Guo 1 ,
• Jean-Marc Coicaud 1 ,
• Yanfeng Gu 1 ,
• Qingping Liu 1 ,
• Xuan Qin 1 ,
• Guodong Sun 1 ,
• Zhongyuan Wang 1 &
• Chunman Zhang 1  

22k Accesses

9 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 10 September 2020

This article has been updated

The paper focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of global justice and discusses theories, concepts, evaluative principles, and methodologies related to the study of global justice. In this paper, we seek to clarify how to conceptualize global justice, how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories, and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice. Global justice is a broad concept that is composed of multi-level and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities. A coherent and integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore much needed in order to address some of the basic and important questions under study. The paper seeks to synthesize the multiple theories and conceptions of global justice that exist in the academic discourse and literature into three main theoretical approaches to global justice—rights based, good based, and virtue based. These three approaches are a good sample of and reflect well the strengths of the different theoretical, intellectual and cultural traditions at play in the study of global justice. From this perspective, the synthesis of the three approaches is meant to provide us with a coherent theoretical framework that serves as the normative basis and justifies the selection of indicators for measurement.

Similar content being viewed by others

How Global Is Global Justice? Towards a Global Philosophy

Realism and Right: Sketch for a Theory of Global Justice

Social and Global Justice

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The paper focuses on the conceptualization and measurement of global justice and discusses theories, concepts, evaluative principles, and methodologies related to the study of global justice.

In this paper, we seek to clarify how to conceptualize global justice, how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories, and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice.

We recognize that in contemporary debates there exist some major theoretical approaches concerning the conceptualization of the ideas of global justice and that these ideas are understood, used and discussed in theoretical, institutional, and policy contexts. Thus, global justice is a broad concept that is composed of multi-level and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities. A coherent and integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore much needed in order to address some of the basic and important questions under study.

The paper seeks to synthesize the multiple theories and conceptions of global justice that exist in the academic discourse and literature into three main theoretical approaches to global justice—rights based, good based, and virtue based. These three approaches are a good sample of and reflect well the strengths of the different theoretical, intellectual and cultural traditions at play in the study of global justice. They also capture the essence, characteristics, and major dimensions of justice at the global level. From this perspective, the synthesis of the three approaches is meant to provide us with a coherent theoretical framework that serves as the normative basis and justifies the selection of indicators for measurement.

We also recognize the difficulties and challenges associated with the measurement of global justice. We therefore develop two evaluative principles for measurement to serve as guidelines in the selection and operationalization of conceptual indicators—seeking as much to connect with the theoretical approaches as to compile the indicators. These two principles are not only consistent with global justice theories, but they justify the selection of the issue areas covered in this research project. Finally, we will address questions of methodology to be employed in this research in terms of measurement, data availability and data limitations, which would lay down the ground work for further empirical research, data collection, and data analysis.

1 Rights-Based Conceptualization of Global Justice

1.1 the conception of justice.

Our conception of justice is mainly based on social justice. As Rawls points out: “For us the primary subject is the basic structure of society, or more exactly, the way in which the major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties and determine the division of advantages from social cooperation.” (Rawls 1999 , p. 6) The study of justice has been concerned with what we owe one another, and what obligations we might have to treat each other fairly in a range of domains, including over distributive and recognitional matters. Classical and contemporary political philosophers have focused their theorizing on justice almost exclusively within the state, but the last 20 years or so have seen a marked extension to the global sphere, with a huge expansion in the array of topics covered.

The quest for justice happens in a social context, and its objective is to ensure that the interests of actors are made compatible. This amounts to at the same time limiting and socializing these interests by embedding them into a logic and dynamic of rights and duties of actors toward one another. The rights of actors are secured to the extent that they acknowledge having duties and responsibilities toward others. The recognition by an actor of the rights of other actors secures some sense of order, creating the preconditions in which justice is possible. This is to say, justice enables the possibility of relations of reciprocity and cooperation among actors.

The most important rights and associated duties and responsibilities at the core of a theory of justice tend to have two main features. 1. They concern the rights without which people cannot sustain themselves, and the absence of which also places the stability of the polity or community at risk. 2. They concern the core values on which the identity of a society and its members is structured and organized. From this perspective, a significant aspect of a theory of justice amounts to theorizing and evaluating how these two features come together in a society.

On these most important rights, justice is in principle uncompromising. Actors have equal rights, such as the right of equal respect and treatment, as John Rawls expounds on the two principles of justice: “First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls 1999 , p. 53). These principles primarily apply to basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages. These principles are to be arranged in a serial order with the first principle prior to the second. Thus, what makes just arrangements so important is that the rights they protect are uncompromising, which is in the first order. Footnote 1 And, according to Rawls, one of the important principles of equality for distributive justice is equality of opportunity, which means that everyone is equal in her chances of receiving education, getting a position in public office, etc., irrespective of her race, nationality, family background, and so on.

In addition to the most important or core (or primary) rights and duties and responsibilities, there are also rights that are far from peripheral. Incidentally, as societies develop and acquire more resources, it seems that more and more rights have been recognized as primary rights. Footnote 2 To some extent this phenomenon suggests that justice is not an absolute, fixed and unyielding concept but rather a concept that is somewhat fluid and that grows organically as societies grow richer in access to resources and start to recognize rights that were hitherto marginal as basic rights, for example, the right to clean water or clean air, the right to privacy, etc.

The principal responsibility of political institutions, such as the state, is to ensure the respect of what actors see as their rights and duties, especially those at the core of their sense of justice. The possibility and enjoyment of rights (and duties) is a key aspect of the function and responsibility of political institutions, especially if they aspire to be viewed as legitimate. One of the ways in which political institutions can achieve such outcomes is to produce and nurture public goods in the fields of security, economics, health, education, etc.

The protection of the rights of every person is a duty for any political institution. Human rights belong to all individuals regardless of their citizenship, nationality, culture and other forms of associative membership. Article 2 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reiterates this universality and individuality of human rights as follows:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”.

As a universal ideal, the protection and securing of the human rights of individuals is not solely the purview of their respective states. States may well be the primary moral agents tasked with securing and protecting the human rights of their own citizens, but human rights are ultimately a matter of international concern. When a state fails to live up to its human rights duties, the international community has the responsibility to respond appropriately. The universality of human rights, therefore, has important practical implications (Tan 2017 , p. 60).

In recent years, in addition to rights or the institutionalist approach to justice, some other approaches have been developed, including the capability approach put forward by Amartya Sen and others. According to this approach, individual advantage is judged by a person’s capability to do things she or he has reason to value. Its focus is on the freedom that a person actually has to do this or be that. Obviously, the things we value most are particularly important for us to be able to achieve. The concept of capability is thus linked closely with the opportunity aspect of freedom, seen in terms of “comprehensive” opportunities. Consequently, the capability approach aims at equality of opportunity, but focuses on information in judging and comparing overall individual advantages. A number of distinguished contributions have been made by Martha Nussbaum and others on matters of social assessment and policy through powerful use of the capability approach (Sen 2009 , pp. 231–232; Nussbaum 2006 ). The realization of justice depends not only on defending individual rights to freedom, but also on developing a person’s capability or social functions to realize her freedom, such as satisfaction of basic needs, conditions that lead to a decent life, better education, etc.

1.2 Global Justice

Global justice builds on key intuitions and insights developed in the framework of justice as it has been traditionally explored in the context of local and national communities. It is the pursuit of justice at the global level, i.e., at the level of the whole of humanity. As such, global justice entails at least four related defining features:

It makes human beings, whoever they are and wherever they are, the primary right holders.

It addresses issues that in nature and scope must be to a significant extent taken up at the global level (like climate change and the global political economy).

Addressing features 1 and 2 requires some sort of global community conscience, made of shared global values and prudential considerations (a mix of projection of values by powerful countries, negotiation in the context of international agreements and the need to cooperate with one another). Footnote 3

Addressing features 1, 2, and 3 calls for conceiving and establishing public goods at the global level and making them complementary with the pursuit of public goods at the national and regional levels.

These four features are by and large the benchmarks of global justice. Since there are some differences between justice within a country and justice between nations, the universal standards that exist in such issues as human rights, democracy, equality, freedom, etc., serve as a common denominator for people between nations to deal with each other.

In its most comprehensive dimension, a theory of global justice entails the following four related dimensions: (1) A normative dimension: Which criteria and values should be used for evaluating and judging what is just from a global standpoint, and the nature of the rights? (2) A methodological and procedural dimension: Which procedures and mechanisms should be mobilized to identify and implement the substance of rights? (3) An institutional dimension: Which institutions and laws are best suited to an agenda of global justice? (4) A policy dimension: Which policies should be put in place to nurture access to and respect of rights at the global level?

The concept of global justice, just as the concept of justice in the national context, recognizes different kinds of rights and their statuses in the evaluation of justice. As with justice in general, primary rights at the global level concern equal treatment of all peoples, physical, economic and health security, access to education, etc. The pursuit of the respect of these rights takes place especially in the context of the development of public goods, as articulated between the national and the global levels. For instance, given the growing economic interdependence of countries (globalization), the pursuit of economic and environmental justice calls for establishing a complementarity of rights and duties and public goods at the national and global levels. Those in international human rights circles talk about ‘first-’, ‘second-’ and ‘third-generation’ rights (see Alston 1987 , p. 307). First-generation rights are the traditional liberties and privileges of citizenship: religious toleration, freedom from arbitrary arrest, free speech, the right to vote, and so on. Second-generation rights are socio-economic claims: the right to education, housing, healthcare, employment and an adequate standard of living. Though these are thought to be more radical claims requiring a more interventionist state, they remain essentially individualistic in their content, inasmuch as it is the material welfare of each man, woman and child that is intended to be secured by these provisions. Third-generation rights, in contrast, have to do with communities or whole peoples, rather than individual persons. They include minority language rights, national rights to self-determination and the right to such diffuse goods as peace, environmental integrity and economic development. But when reordering is needed, respect for human rights takes priority over respect for peoples, as a government should take the respect of the rights of its individual citizens most seriously. Footnote 4

Global justice concerns principles dealing with international relations. Rawls’ Law of Peoples was a significant work that stimulated thinking about global justice. Several questions soon became prominent in the discussions related to global justice, including: What principles should guide international action? What responsibilities do we have to the global poor? Should global inequality be morally troubling? Are there types of non-liberal polities that should be tolerated? What kind of foreign policy is consistent with liberal values? Is a “realistic utopia” possible in the global domain?

As Rawls points out, his principles of justice among free and democratic peoples include: peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples; peoples are equal and are parties to the agreements that bind them; and peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention. Footnote 5 Rawls stresses that free and independent well-ordered peoples are ready to recognize certain basic principles of political justice as governing their conduct, and these principles constitute the basic charter of the Law of Peoples (Rawls 1999 , pp. 36–37).

Equal respect and treatment of all peoples should be universal, namely not only for those in liberal democratic and decent societies, but also for those of outlaw states or those in unfavorable conditions. A principle of justice such as that of non-intervention may have to be qualified in the general case of outlaw states and grave violations of human rights, but the principle of equal respect and treatment still applies to all peoples. For those outlaw states, when humanitarian disasters happen, it is possible to envision sanction or intervention, as equal treatment of all peoples is still requisite. From the perspective of international relations, a people is like a person: It has its own personality, and equal rights and respect of persons can be extended to the global context. As peoples enjoy equality of rights, they should not be prejudiced or discriminated against for reasons having to do with their geographical size, population, religion, race, and cultural tradition.

While most moral and political solidarity and global responsibility must be founded or based upon primary rights, global justice must also be evaluated on the basis of how rights that are secondary but are nonetheless significant for human life are respected. This is particularly important since global justice seeks to identify and respect the most important, and as such universal, rights of human beings in the midst of cultural pluralism.

The state or the nation-state can be a key instrument of global justice in creating and maintaining respect for the rights of human beings. The legitimacy of a nation-state regime and even the nation-state itself and its rights will be evaluated on the basis of its contribution to the rights of human beings and public goods both at a national and global level. This is to say that the pursuit of the national interest at the exclusion of rights and public goods beyond borders is at odds with the normative, policy, institutional, and political agenda of global justice. In a global context, the national interest is not exclusively self-centered. It is also geared toward global solidarity and responsibility, and not simply in a marginal fashion. A hierarchy may exist in what a state owes to its people and what it owes to strangers, but this hierarchy is meant to be inclusive (to make room for and look after the rights of strangers, since they are human beings) and not exclusionary.

Supporters of global justice seek to determine, in the service of the rights of individuals, the right balance between just universalism and just particularism and pluralism. They try to adjudicate how the equality and hierarchy (all people should have equal rights of some type but a hierarchy exists between certain kinds of rights) of individual rights should be negotiated, conceptualized and implemented in the midst of the dilemmas that relations between universalism, particularism, and pluralism can create.

Natural resources often figure prominently in several topics of global justice. Some relevant questions include: Are national communities entitled to the resources they find on their territories? Should principles of global justice apply to our arrangements for justly distributing natural resources? As an early proponent of a resource distribution principle, Charles Beitz argues that natural resources should be allocated such that each society is able to provide adequately for its population (Beitz 1975 ).

1.3 Conceptualization of Global Justice

A key problematic for the conceptualization of global justice is: How is it possible to reconcile a cosmopolitan and universalist agenda (primacy of the rights of individuals, especially when it comes to basic security and economic rights) with the particularistic logic of nation-states and pluralism of cultures, and the challenges that this can create from both theoretical and practical standpoints?

The eight sets of considerations below could serve as guidelines for the conceptualization of global justice:

The rights of human beings have primacy.

The rights of states are based on the extent to which they serve the rights of human beings, domestically and internationally, and contribute to the establishment of public goods, nationally and globally, themselves at the service of the rights of human beings. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. And no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust territory, non-self-governing territory, or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

In a justice context, the rights of states are not absolute, or an end in themselves. They are based upon the rights of human beings. As such, nation-states have a key role to play in global justice, both at the domestic and global levels. The fact that the rights of states are based upon their contribution to the rights of human beings and public goods makes them open to criticism if they do not take the requirement of solidarity and responsibility seriously. Footnote 6

From the perspective of global justice, the legitimacy of a nation-state will be evaluated on the basis of its contribution to the rights of human beings and public goods nationally but also on the basis of its contribution to these rights at the global level. This is to say that the pursuit of the national interest at the exclusion of rights and public goods beyond borders is at odds with a global justice normative, policy, institutional and political agenda. In a global context, the national interest has to factor in global solidarity and responsibility.

Equal respect and treatment of all peoples should be universal. From the perspective of international relations, a people is like a person; It has its own personality, and equal rights and respect of persons can be extended to the global context. As peoples enjoy equality of rights, they should not be prejudiced or discriminated against for reasons having to do with their geographical size, population, religion, race, or cultural tradition.

The first priority of global solidarity and responsibility on the part of states, international organizations and other actors (such as non-governmental organizations, the private sector, or individual actors) is to ensure that those rights viewed as basic, as primary rights, are not overlooked nationally and globally. This can entail socio-economic rights, security rights, etc. It is upon these primary rights that the bulk of solidarity and responsibility must be conceived and exercised, and that a sense of global justice must be first and foremost evaluated. But the sense of global justice must also be evaluated on the basis of how the rights that are secondary but nonetheless important for human life are respected. In addition, cosmopolitan engagement in the service of global justice should not necessarily lead to a homogenization of ways of life and thinking, or even of modalities of development. Universality of rights does not mean uniformity of rights and ways of life.

The key is to identify the nature of primary rights, on which there can be no compromise, and the nature of secondary rights, on which there can be some compromise, and then assess the extent to which they are respected (threshold of realization and implementation). Competition and hierarchy of rights in the context of global justice, and the tensions, dilemmas and trade-offs that come with them, must always be managed in favor of primary rights.

The identification and negotiation of these rights (primary and secondary) must be agreed upon by people, and not simply by their government or global institutions, so that people have a say, agency and participation in how they live. This is a key aspect of global justice, as of any level of justice.

2 Goods-Based Conceptualization of Global Justice

Justice in the distribution of goods is one of the main topics in the domain of global justice. It deals with the question of the global duty under which we are obliged to ensure that people meet their basic needs and enjoy decent lives regardless of their nationality, color, sex, religion and social class, etc. This section discusses the mainstream goods-based approaches as the metrics of justice, including the Rawlsian social primary goods approach, the capability approach, and the equal opportunities of welfare approach. All of these approaches “have sought to answer the question ‘what should we look at, when evaluating whether one state of affairs is more or less just than another’” (Brighouse and Robeyns 2010 , p. 1).

2.1 Goods-Based Approach versus Rights-Based Approach

Goods-based approaches, alongside the discourse of human rights, add important clarification to the concept of global justice. They are deemed complementary to the discourse of human rights for the following two main reasons.

First, there is a gap between the nominal recognition of rights and the actual satisfaction of needs. In addition to the highly abstract language of human rights, we still need the down-to-earth language of goods to determine the materials and institutional support that the government is obliged to provide (Nussbaum 2011 ).

Second, the human rights approach—the libertarian or neoliberal understanding of rights—is widely criticized for its excessive emphasis on the “negative” aspect of liberty. (For the distinction between negative and positive liberty see Berlin 1958 ). Instead of merely “keeping hands off” to ensure the absence of interference, the government needs to do more in order to “positively” secure the basic goods for people to achieve their desired lives (Nussbaum 2004 , 2011 ).

2.2 Historical Analysis of the Connection Between Goods and Justice

Theoretical connections between goods and justice can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle held that a “just” government must pay attention to common goods, while an “unjust” government pays attention to the goods of the rulers (Aristotle 1984 ). When common goods conflict with private goods, the latter is always secondary. This perfectionist view, with a comprehensive account of good, is labeled the “unitary conception of common good” by Held ( 1970 ). It was further developed in Christian thought, especially in Roman Catholicism, before the advent of liberalism in the Seventeenth century. Since Hobbes offered an interpretation of human nature as desirous of the satisfaction of private needs, private goods have gradually become a legitimate motive and gained moral authority (Douglass 1980 ). From the point of view of the contractarians, pursuing private interests is considered legitimate since it is supported by natural law as the “natural right” (Hobbes 2016 ; Locke 1982 ; Rousseau 1978 ). This is how the discourse of “rights” enters the debate and replaces “common goods” as the most important element in the interpretation of the conception of justice.

2.3 Three Approaches to the Goods-Based Conception of Global Justice

2.3.1 primary goods approach footnote 7.

Against this backdrop, Rawls offered a new interpretation of goods as an attempt to fit the rights-justice discourse. On the basis of the liberal commitment that individuals have an interest in being able to make their own choices without violation by the “good of all”, Rawls propounded the idea of “primary goods”, which are defined as the basic goods that everyone needs for the satisfaction of their various ends, to replace the unitary and comprehensive conception of “common goods”. He argued that “primary goods…are things which it is supposed a rational man wants whatever else he wants…with more of these goods men can generally be assured of greater success in carrying out their intentions and in advancing their ends” (Rawls 1971 , p. 92). More specifically, although individuals have different ends and various life plans, primary goods are necessary means. In this case, “good” is no longer an encompassing idea that regulates every aspect of citizens’ lives, but is the primary material for individuals to fulfil their specific rational desires. Footnote 8

Rawls’s view of primary goods involves rights and basic liberties, income and wealth, powers and prerogatives of office, and the social bases of self-respect. Generally speaking, it includes both materials and relations that we generate together through social interaction. Footnote 9 It is a requirement of justice for the government to maintain the social conditions that answer to the primary goods of individuals (Rawls 1982 , 2001 ).

Defenders of the primary goods approach to justice include Thomas Pogge ( 2002 ), Freeman ( 2006 ), Richardson ( 2006 ), and Norman Daniels ( 2010 ), among others. They defended this approach against the capability approach, an alternative metric of justice that we discuss subsequently.

2.3.2 Capability Approach

As an improvement on the Rawlsian approach of primary goods, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum developed the capability approach. Sen argued that the primary goods metric fails to notice the inter-individual variations between people, such as metabolism, intelligence, and political and physical environments. These variations, together with primary goods, determine the extent to which people can achieve their purposes and ambitions. Thus, provision merely of primary goods is not enough to meet the requirements of justice (Sen 1980 , 1990 ). In this sense, Sen argued that we should focus on people’s being and doing, that is, their capabilities.

Nussbaum developed a well-known list of the ten central human capabilities: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment (Nussbaum 2006 ). These capabilities require “many things from the world: adequate nutrition, education of faculties, protection of bodily integrity, liberty for speech and religious self-expression, and so forth. If this is so, then we all have entitlements based on justice to a minimum of each of these central goods” (Nussbaum 2004 ). In this way, Nussbaum justified the capability approach in the framework of global justice.

It should be noted that the capability approach, although emphasizing peoples’ being and doing, in no way denies the importance of resources, materials, social institutions, and other forms of goods with regard to people’s well-being. Scholars such as Henry Richardson ( 2006 ) have shown that the primary goods approach and the capabilities approach can be combined into a coherent framework.

2.3.3 Equal Opportunities for Welfare

Alternative approaches exist in addition to the two metrics discussed above. Richard Arneson ( 1989 ) offered an account of justice with the idea of “equal opportunities for welfare”. He concurred with Sen’s criticism of the Rawlsian primary goods approach. But with regard to the capability approach, he also doubted “whether there are any objectively decidable grounds by which the value of a person’s capabilities can be judged apart from the person’s preferences” (Arneson 1989 , pp. 91–92). The valuation of capability independent of preferences, in his view, “presuppose[s] the adequacy of an as yet unspecified perfectionist doctrine” (Arneson 1989 , p. 92). As a result, he understood “welfare” as preference satisfaction. Goods must be distributed equally among people to the degree that the distribution ensures the same opportunities for each person to satisfy his preferences. Other variants of this idea can be found in the works of Cohen ( 2011 ), Otsuka ( 2003 ), and John Roemer ( 1998 ).

2.4 Summary

Briefly, the three approaches, although presenting disagreements about the details of goods distribution, share the same commitment that the government, as the primary agent of justice, has the responsibility to distribute basic social goods (in a broad sense) to ensure that basic rights are met and satisfied. More specifically, the government should maintain a basic social order to protect citizens’ security, provide primary materials for citizens’ basic survival, improve the system of education to promote equal opportunities, and provide equal employment opportunities to ensure that individuals with similar capabilities have similar prospects, regardless of their gender, class or background.

Similar ideas exist in Chinese philosophy. Confucianism holds the view that the government should “extensively confer benefits on the people and assist all” (Confucius 2018 ), and Mozi ( 2003 ) argued that good governance is based on universal justice, which requires the government to “enrich the people, increase the population and bring stability and order to the nation”. These theories support the goods-based idea of justice from a non-Western backdrop and reflect its wide applicability in various cultural contexts.

3 Virtue-Based Conceptualization of Global Justice

Alongside the two approaches mentioned above (essentially generated in the West), one focusing on rights and the other on public goods, there is another approach to global justice, largely a non-Western one which focuses on virtue, that deserves our attention. Its significance makes it important to include here. Moreover, this approach of justice as virtue, if applied today globally, could help us overcome the one-sidedness that the other two approaches may lead to as they view respect for human rights or provision of public goods simply as a mandatory obligation for international society, national governments and individual members. It will be a full testament to the significance of global justice as a noble virtue which the actors concerned are willing to acquire.

To put it another way, in the issue of global justice, the difference between the virtue approach and the other two approaches is that it does not regard people merely as passive practitioners who have to obey certain coercive obligations of global justice, nor as inactive recipients who have urgent needs for certain public goods and must be satisfied. Instead, it first regards people as positive actors who have free will, and in particular a sense of justice, and are willing to make conscious efforts to achieve the global justice of respect for human rights and provision of public goods. In this distinct way, global justice presents itself as a voluntary and noble virtue of human actors, not merely as some mandatory duties for human actions (Liu 2017 ).

3.1 The Confucian and Mohist Views of Justice as a Virtue

In the Eastern tradition, more specifically in China, Confucians proposed “exercising government by means of virtue”, on the basis of the idea that “politics means the government out of justice” as early as 2500 years ago. They advocated that the ruler, as the “sage-king,” should pursue a path from “self-cultivation, family regulation, country governance to peace restoration in the world” and extend his “filial piety” in family life to his “benevolent government” in order to achieve the “great unity”, in the context of which everyone in the world would be unified as one (Chan 1963 , pp. 14–83).

Their Mohist contemporaries, in contrast, demanded, based on the philosophy of “honoring the worthy,” that the ruler possesses “universal love” as a virtue and “promotes what is beneficial to the world”, while observing the “universal justice” of “no harm to fellow humans” (Mozi 2003 ). As a result, in spite of their opposition to each other on such issues as normative justice and the relationship between collectivism and individualism, these two schools did share something in common. Not only did they view the moral affections of human relationships as the primary motive of achieving justice, but they also emphasized the significant role of the noble virtues of sages and elites in justice.

Under their complex influence, the general view of justice in Chinese traditional philosophy not only affirmed the importance of establishing the bottom line of just obligations and providing public goods, but also highlighted the virtuous role of people, in particular moral elites, who voluntarily engage in just acts by virtue of their sense of justice, i.e., their belief in “bravely defending justice” or “taking justice as supreme,” formed in their relationship with others.

3.2 Justice as a Virtue in Western Tradition

In the west, the view of justice as a virtue, which originated in ancient Greece, is prone to highly value the leading role of reason. When viewing justice as a major virtue of individuals and society (city-state), Plato and Aristotle based it on rational knowledge or wisdom, and, to varying degrees, were critical of emotional desires and feelings (Plato 2004 ; Aristotle 2009 ). This idea had some impact on the contemporary rights-based approach to global justice through the theories of Immanuel Kant, John Rawls and other deontologists (Kant 1970 ; Rawls 1971 ). David Hume, Adam Smith and other philosophers, in particular from Great Britain, on the other hand, have questioned or even rejected the leading role of reason in their view of justice as a virtue, while focusing more on the effects of moral sentiments like sympathy and benevolence on the formation of justice as a virtue (Hume 1948 ; Smith 1984 ). To some extent, their ideas influenced the approach to public goods accepted by consequentialists.

Precisely because of the relatively strong and long-term influence of deontology and consequentialism, however, the Western traditional view of justice as virtue has had little role to play in the context of global justice after it was incorporated into the other two approaches. For example, although Rawls described justice as the “first virtue of social institutions” and also discussed people’s sense of justice, he emphasized the two principles of domestic justice mainly as mandatory obligations of human action (Rawls 1971 ). As is well known, this deontological approach has greatly affected the theoretical efforts of most scholars to extend these two principles of domestic justice to a global scale.

3.3 Contemporary Western Virtue Ethics

Contemporary Western virtue ethics, which went through a revival in the mid-20th century, focus especially on the contextual effects of people’s moral and psychological mechanisms, such as motive, feeling, character and personality, and on their moral virtues and behaviors. Critical of the universalistic, undifferentiated and compulsory tendency of deontologists and consequentialists regarding justice, it attempts to reinterpret interactions between universal justice and particular interpersonal emotions, such as love, friendship, and loyalty. Therefore, it becomes another approach in parallel with the deontologist and consequentialist approaches in contemporary moral philosophy and shares something in common with the Confucian ethics (Slote 1998 ; Hursthouse and Pettigrove 2016 ).

Nevertheless, in order to establish its own independent discourse in a theoretical context dominated by deontology, contemporary Western virtue ethics sometimes shows a tendency to dissociate the universal obligations of justice from such particular virtues as love, friendship, and loyalty. As a result, it relatively neglects the fact that justice itself could also become a noble virtue full of personal motivation and emotional implication, in which people voluntarily engage in just acts in their global interpersonal relationships out of their sense of justice. This tendency is also a theoretical reason for the relative weakness of the virtue-based approach in the context of global justice.

3.4 Theoretic Tasks for the Virtue Approach

In consideration of the above views of justice as a virtue with far-reaching impacts, the approach to global justice as a virtue is not only theoretically possible but it also possesses unique value and significance relative to the other two approaches. First of all, a “modernized” approach to global justice as virtue would overcome the narrow limitations of past views within this school of thought (in particular where they failed to extend the notion of justice globally). Secondly, it would draw lessons from its long-standing tradition of focusing on the voluntary and noble virtues of human actors, making up for the other two approaches’ one-sidedness in comparatively neglecting people’s personal motivation, humane emotions, autonomous volition, and in particular their sense of justice, and highlight the positive functions of these subjective psychological factors in promoting people to voluntarily achieve global justice.

Of course, this approach does not at all deny the fundamental significance of respecting human rights and providing public goods for global justice. On the very basis of recognizing this fundamental significance, it tries not only to record the actual contributions from wealthy philanthropists and ordinary volunteers/citizens to global justice and to explore how people form and strengthen their sense of justice through human interaction in real life from an empirical point of view, but also to stress the great importance of various actors (including individuals, organizations, and administrative bodies, for example) to regard global justice as a noble virtue to pursue (as opposed to a compulsory obligation they have to abide by), and to encourage people to internalize the external obligation to respect human rights and provide public goods by cultivating and expanding their own sense of justice from a normative point of view.

In other words, the approach to global justice as a virtue does not simply require people to respect human rights and provide public goods as a heteronomous obligation which amounts to thinking: “I am obliged to abide by this, I am obliged to take global justice seriously”. Instead, it encourages people to do what they can to help the needy around the world as an autonomous virtue, which amounts to thinking: “I am willing to do this”, I am willing to achieve global justice.

From this perspective, establishing the approach of global justice as a virtue as part of the theoretical portfolio of global justice will offer a new and inspiring perspective in terms of pursuing global justice in the context of issues such as protection of vulnerable groups, bridging the gap between rich and poor, educational equality, and improvement of our ecological environment. In particular, this will allow us to highlight the positive role of the subjective dimension of actors, i.e., self-disciplinary motives, emotions, voluntariness, as well as the impact of leaders as role models, all elements that tend to be overlooked. In addition, this will also help us to enhance our theoretical reflection on global justice from the perspective of moral psychology, which is a significant aspect of any theory of justice.

4 Comparison of the Three Approaches to Global Justice

We want to thank Thomas Hale for suggesting to us to conduct a comparison of the three approaches.

Following the above discussion of each of the three approaches to global justice separately, this section focuses on the relationships between them. Through analysis of the similarities and differences, we try to offer a more explicit and comprehensive explanation of the structures and characteristics of our three approaches. Generally speaking, in contrast to the traditional approaches (deontological, consequentialism, or virtue theories) that think about justice in separate and competing ways, the three approaches in our project are interdependent with each other and deal with different aspects of justice (Table  1 ).

Noticeably, as indicated in the table above, the rights-based approach is focused on the basic principles, guidelines, and sources of legitimacy of justice, and views the requirements of justice as mandatory obligations and legal duties of states and institutions. The goods-based approach emphasizes the achievement of justice by states and institutions, and especially the material and institutional support that the governments or institutions are obliged to provide. The virtue-based approach discusses the internalization or motive of justice, and it sees justice as a virtue that one is willing to acquire rather than a rule one is forced to obey. We agree with Habermas that self-motivation in moral practice in the modern world is very weak and powerless, because we inevitably encounter the dilemma of the “motivational deficit” at the level of voluntary moral action with disenchantment in the world, which means post-traditional morality no longer immediately carries the motivational power that converts moral judgments into moral actions. “A morality thus withdrawn into the cultural system maintains only a virtual relation to action as long as it is not actualized by motivated actors themselves. The latter must be disposed to act according to conscience. A principled morality thus depends on socialization processes that meet it halfway by engendering the corresponding agencies of conscience, namely, the correlative superego formations. Aside from the weak motivating force of good reasons, such a morality becomes effective for action only through the internalization of moral principles in the personality system” (Habermas 1996 , pp. 113–114). Therefore, a virtuous person who considers justice as a constitutive element of his/her self-identity or value orientation has sufficient motivational force to shoulder moral or legal duties related to global justice.

Secondly, the units of analysis are different in each approach. For the first two approaches, the main units of analysis are states or institutions. For the virtue-based approach, although the main unit of analysis is the individual, in certain cases, states and organizations can also be regarded as “willing” actors holding the virtue of justice supported by the principle of “cosmopolitan but due-diligent responsibilities” (CDDR), as discussed in the next section.

Let’s take anti-poverty as an example to illustrate the above. In this case, the rights-based approach addresses the problem of why individuals are entitled to the rights to a basic standard of living, and identifies where the source of legitimacy lies. The goods-based approach determines the substantive support that governments or institutions are obliged to provide to ensure these rights. However, the virtue-based approach explores how individuals (state and institutional leaders or any individual) internalize and integrate the principle of helping others in poverty alleviation into their own ethical identities.

Finally, we would like to offer some further clarification of the relationship between the three approaches. The relationship between the three is interdependent rather than separate: it is better to understand the three approaches as three interdependent parts of a holistic interpretation rather than three separate ways to think about justice. The goods-based and virtue-based approaches, although each has a specific focus, share basic principles and commitments with the rights-based approach, and they further develop the conception of justice based on the endorsement of rights. The three approaches are also complementary rather than competing : the rights-based approach provides the basic structure as the “bones.” The goods-based approach thinks about justice in concrete terms to provide “muscles,” which ensures that in practice the rights are guaranteed. And the virtue-based approach helps us in overcoming the one-sidedness of the rights-based approach that focuses simply on obligations. It, conversely, emphasizes willingness, personal motivation and internalization, to provide a “heart”.

5 Two Evaluative Principles of Global Justice

The three theoretical approaches aforementioned lay the foundations for the conceptualization of global justice, on the basis of which it will then be possible to identify, evaluate, and assess the performance of various actors involved in carrying out projects, endeavors, or undertakings seeking to promote justice at the global level. The myriad of both the actors involved and the actions taken can render the process of evaluation difficult.

That said, this difficulty can be attenuated, although not entirely eliminated, by some general principles that can serve as guides for the efforts to evaluate. As such, these principles are formulated not only as a way to bridge the gap between theory and practice but also in order to assist us in the selection of the designated areas for evaluation.

Against this background, we are here proposing two clusters of global-justice matters, to which correspond two evaluative principles, which we call: Common but Differentiated and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and Cosmopolitan but Due-diligent Responsibilities (CDDR) . These two evaluative principles, in their conceptualization, aim to connect the theoretical approaches and to compile the indicators in the succeeding section. They are not only consistent with global justice theories, but also justify the selection of issue areas covered in this working paper. From this perspective, they aim at reconciling national interests and global justice under the umbrella of the abovementioned three approaches to global justice. As principles, they help to connect the three approaches to global justice with the evaluative indicators compiled. Footnote 11 In order to evaluate the performance of various actors toward the goal of achieving greater global justice, there is the need for these two principles to serve as guidelines, as illustrated in the following diagram:

5.1 CBDR-RC

The first cluster addresses those issues for which no single actor can be held directly accountable or responsible, matters that can only be tackled through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders. These issues involve climate change (global warming), anti-terrorism, peacekeeping, or humanitarian aid. For such matters, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”, first adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Footnote 12 and reaffirmed in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Footnote 13 is arguably a principle that combines moral legitimacy with historical rationality.

By definition, this principle addresses the differential treatment of nation-states in terms of their contribution to the global cause of environmental protection, with an equitable consideration of their respective capabilities, financial resources, and different levels of technological sophistication. Responsibilities to protect the general climate system have been allocated on the basis of national strength and capabilities among the collective bodies of international society. Such differential substantial requirements may include providing a more favorable compliance timetable for some groups of parties, allowing others to exempt themselves from the compliance with either some part or the whole of an international agreement, and differentiating financial and technical contributions in accordance with national overall strength and capabilities, to name just a few. Such a situation of nonuniform obligations is, more often than not, seen in international conventions on environmental protection, where developed countries are in many instances expected to play a greater role than their developing counterparts in reducing the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG), providing technology transfer to the LDCs and making more financial contributions to the common cause of environmental protection.

Although this principle was first proposed as a guideline for determining the respective responsibilities falling on each and every nation-state, it is expansive to the extent that it is capable of serving as a benchmark for other global justice areas such as anti-terrorism or global peacekeeping.

Similar to climate change and globally concerted efforts to preserve the whole ecological system, the call to combat terrorism is not delimited by national boundaries. The global nature of terrorist activities, as seen in the cross-national networks linking terrorists from different locations in a coordinated effort to share information, pool resources, and launch terrorist attacks, demands that we adopt a global approach in our countermeasures. Similarly, the need for peacekeeping in politically and socially unstable areas equally requires that each and every nation contribute, either in money or in personnel, to engage in helping to end conflicts and restore law and order in conflict areas.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities emphasizes that actor- or region-specific contributions to the common cause, be it environmental protection, anti-terrorism or global peacekeeping, be differentiated along a few lines. Among the various factors that may have an impact on the way responsibilities are distributed among various actors, several are readily distinguishable, namely the needs of the actor(s), the responsibility for both past and current harms caused, and the technological and financial resources proprietarily owned by the actor(s) (Stone 2004 , pp. 290–292).

First of all, where needs are concerned, arguably, an actor, be it an NGO, a nation-state, or a region, will have its needs conditioned on such a wide variety of factors as its geographical location, the vulnerability of the natural environment, and the endowment of natural resources, to name just a few. In the climate change literature, it has been mentioned that low-lying coastal areas may be particularly susceptible to inundation as a result of global warming and the melting of Antarctic ice (e.g., Article 4(8) in UNFCCC). A country or location within the proximity of terrorist-infested regions, in another instance, can also create a greater need for international coordination and the provision of security. Peacekeeping forces, along the same line of reasoning, will be dispatched to those areas where they are needed the most.

Secondly, the responsibility of an actor also depends on the degree and amount of harms caused, both in the past and present. This allocation shifts the focus from needs to the wrongs done and thus the costs to be incurred. One common argument in environmental scholarship is to assign heavier contributions to developed countries for the pollution they caused in history. The fact that developed nations are cleaner or less polluting now in terms of their emission of GHG does not justify the wrongs they have done in the past. For this very reason, past conduct will need to be taken into account. The responsibility that each and every state bears shall be rendered proportionate to the pressures their respective societies place on the shared environment, where the emission of GHG by any given country, for instance, recognizes no national boundary and exerts a negative impact on the environment shared by the emitting and non-emitting countries alike. In a similar vein, anti-terrorist and peacekeeping efforts should examine the involvement of different actors in the rise of terrorism or disturbance in a region and have responsibility allocated on the basis of this evaluation.

Thirdly, due to different levels of economic development, there is unavoidably a gap among the various actors in terms of their access to resources, both technological and financial, for their preparation for and engagement in a concerted global undertaking (e.g., Castro 2016 ; Davidson 2017 ). Those who are better off will be expected to contribute more. This is the case not only because of the lower marginal costs to them, but diminished utility of the resources thus contributed. Take anti-terrorism as an example. The resources contributed by well-ordered societies may at most have marginal influence on the stability of society back home, and in contrast, may have a significant impact on the targeted region or locality. Similarly, many clean technologies, which may help to reduce pollution or the emission of GHG, are proprietarily owned by big corporations or organizations, many of them located in developed nations. Without an international arrangement morally exhorting these actors to make a greater contribution (e.g., technology transfer or sharing), the actors who are technologically or financially in a weaker position may have to wait for a long period until they reach the same or similar level of resourcefulness. Such a delay will not help the globally concerted effort to reach the targeted objective of reduction in the emission of GHG.

During the application of this principle, there may emerge circumstances under which actors will seek to provide aid or assistance to countries that are either their strategic allies or within geographical proximity. Such a bias and preference is justifiable to the extent that our contribution to the cause of global justice will have to start from somewhere, and it accords with our moral intuition that such a choice of partner actor should be guided by an pre-existing closeness, either physical, mental or strategic, which may be termed as a “Confucian Improvement Scheme”. “Confucian Improvement” as a concept was first proposed by Zhao Tingyang (e.g., Zhao 2009 ), who argues for an upgraded version of the concept of the Pareto Optimum, by stressing a win–win situation of coexistence, where actor A gains profit (A+) only and if only such a gain contributes to the gain of actor B (i.e., B+). He originally intended this concept to solve the problem of only one or a small minority of actors gaining benefit during cooperation in a Pareto Optimum scenario. To borrow this term from Zhao, our use here aims to justify an initial preference or bias which may be unavoidable when one actor makes a contribution to the cause of global justice. For instance, the US initiated a “Marshall Plan” to provide aid to post-war Europe, and by the same token, China now may prioritise its aid to the Belt and Road countries. Footnote 14 Such an initial bias or preference can be justified in accordance with the Confucian emphasis on proximity. Nevertheless, we should also acknowledge the limitations of this Scheme, which may aggravate global inequality from a long-term perspective. Ideally, we should allow such a bias or preference to be offset by taking a more expansive, inclusionary approach to extend aid or assistance to those who have the same or greater need of it.

The second cluster is concerned with all actors the world over, with reasonably greater attention to the least advantaged. At the outset, this cluster aims to address the issue of inequality at the global level, a category under which falls issue areas like cross-national criminal police cooperation, anti-poverty, education, public health, and the protection of women, children and minorities, to name just a few. These issue areas will be evaluated on the basis of the principle of “cosmopolitan but due-diligent responsibilities”.

As the name suggests, the principle of cosmopolitan but due-diligent responsibilities demands that all actors, nation-states included, are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid to the abovementioned matters, in which context the least advantaged will have a due - diligent responsibility. This principle is built on the notion of “mutual accountability” as proposed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness , adopted in 2005 at the Second High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness and aiming to promote greater partnership between different parties in aid and development. This notion of “mutual accountability” stresses the idea that apart from the development aid provided by a donor country, within the partner or receiver country, there is a sense of accountability that is owed to its citizens as far as development policies, strategies and performance are concerned. The partner country will need to define its own “measures and standards of performance and accountability…in public financial management, procurement, fiduciary safeguards and environmental assessments, in line with broadly accepted good practices and their quick and widespread application”. Footnote 15 This declaration aims to increase the effectiveness with which development aid is used in a partner country, so to maximize the social impact of the aid. It has a clear emphasis on the receiving partner country in exercising due care and accountability in managing the received funds or aid from a donor.

At the global level, adding the Dworkinian proposition of “ambition-sensitive but endowment-insensitive” to the notion of “mutual accountability” is useful. As Dworkin argues, “we must, on pain of violating equality, allow the distribution of resources at any particular moment to be…ambition-sensitive. It must reflect the cost or benefit to others of the choices people [“actors” as in our case] make so that, for example, those who choose to invest rather than consume, or to consume less expensively rather than more, or to work in more rather than less profitable ways must be permitted to retain the gains that flow from these decisions”. The idea of “ambition-sensitivity” is “endowment-insensitive” to the extent that it must “not be affected by differences in ability of the sort that produce income differences in a laissez-faire economy among people with the same ambitions” (Dworkin 2002 , p. 89).

This can be extended to actors at the global level, suggesting that the distribution of resources at the global level in our efforts to combat inequality should respect the ambition of the actors involved in improving the living conditions for the least advantaged within their respective jurisdictions. Similarly to the principle of subsidiarity (e.g., Garrick 2018 ; Cahill 2017 ; van Riel 2009 ), the CDDR emphasizes the necessity for smaller, less advantaged unit(s) to exercise their initiatives before the intervention of some larger, more resourceful counterpart(s). Footnote 16 Having said that, we should also recognize the fact that the CDDR does not have an in-built assumption of some taken-for-granted hierarchy between and among various actors, regardless of their differences in terms of economy, financial well-being, or social development, which is where the stress on “endowment-insensitivity” steps in. By definition, such distribution should not be conditioned on the natural endowments possessed by an actor, so that this actor, as long as it is ambitious and exercising due care, should be encouraged to thrive on the gains of its ambitions. For instance, at the global level, although all nation-states are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid to the least advantaged, the country, region, or community at a disadvantage should be encouraged to work hard on their own, namely to take due-diligent responsibilities for improving the conditions of their people. Being at a disadvantage does not exclude the need to as much as possible take responsibility for one’s life and exercise agency.

As far as the definition of “due diligence” is concerned, it is a term that is borrowed from legal scholarship. As defined in the Merriam - Webster Dictionary , due diligence, as a legal term, refers to “the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property”. Here we borrow this term and give it an expansive reading, extending the actor who exercises such care from a “person” to a wider, larger entity, such as a nation-state, NGO, or big corporation. This term stresses the fact that an entity has to act with care, in a reasonable manner, to avoid causing harm to others’ well-being, property or other things associated with them. What matters here is avoiding harm.

To give an example, in business transactions, due diligence may involve a systematic inquiry, either by a stakeholder or a third party, of an organization in order to assess its performance. In contrast with what happens in the world of business, when it comes to the performance of the nation-state there is no established system of auditing, investigation and monitoring, especially from a legal standpoint (with the associated power, qualification and mandate). Different from the obligations of a transactional kind and with a commercial nature, such duties and cares are in many instances anticipated on the part of nation-states absent the interreference from any outsider or third party. Largely moral and political, these matters of due care, to be performed diligently by the nation-state and not less numerous than the former kind of responsibilities, are in general targeting residents dwelling within a given territory, under the specific jurisdiction of one particular nation-state. By this principle, the cost of providing public goods is borne privately by each and every nation-state, whereas the derived benefits of a public, which is as well provided for as free from miserable living conditions or abominable public health threats, are available to the collective bodies of international society at large. Footnote 17

From a general point of view, the principle of “cosmopolitan but due-diligent responsibilities” views the issue of such obligations as falling within national jurisdiction, in the context of which nation-states are expected to provide a series of public goods to their people within their respective territories—both goods for citizens and for foreign nationals (e.g., refugees or international visitors). This principle is a cosmopolitan one to the extent that, in addition to ensuring that people can benefit from law and order, and food and shelter, it encourages the fostering of ties across national boundaries and contributes to the reduction of warfare, poverty, and humanitarian disaster. As for the matters that fall within the general scope of national jurisdictions, and about which nation-states are expected to exercise due care in a diligent manner, it is important for nation-states to be responsible for these tasks, for if these costs are not borne by nation-states, they will have to be borne by some third party or international society in general. But if there is an unwillingness on the part of the third party or international society to bear the costs, there is a chance that the situation will escalate and become a serious problem of injustice, with arguably a negative significant global impact. Indeed, a state that fails to provide food, security, shelter, and stability to its own citizens can easily lead to an outflow of migrants to other countries or regions, resulting in refugee crises, both in the country where the crisis has started and the receiving countries.

The principle of cosmopolitan but due-diligent responsibilities generates benefits beyond the nation-state. For example, in ensuring that the population of a country is not exposed to public health threats such as SARS, bird flu, Ebola, or tuberculosis, the duty to act rests primarily with the national government. But, in the process the actions of the national government can also bring benefits at the international level, for a number of public goods at the international level, available to all and enjoyable by all communities across the globe, such as freedom from terrorism, also have their origin in the nation-state (Sandler 2003 , 2005 ). This is to say that the duty of the provision of public goods to residents within a specific national jurisdiction, while seemingly circumscribed, has in fact a cosmopolitan dimension for the benefit of all mankind. The welfare, safety, and rights of a community, and the need for them to be well protected, are a key aspect of building a cosmopolitan international society where harmony and peaceful coexistence prevail. To be sure, it is a complex endeavor to implement a universally accepted conceptualization of what constitutes a decent society. At minimum this presupposes the absence or removal of those public bads or impediments in the way of the pursuit of happiness—however defined by whichever party. And this is rooted in a shared need for subsistence, development, and well-being, a need that is valid across boundaries, be they national, cultural or religious. In the end this is how it may be possible to create a state of “responsibility-sensitive equalitarianism” (Inoue 2016 ) that will help to reduce inequalities at the global level, where actors are encouraged to be responsible for providing public goods, protecting the rights of community members, and exercising due care to prevent harm to others.

6 Methodology

Following the analysis of the three theoretical approaches and the two evaluative principles mentioned above, this section turns to the more practical part of operationalization and measurement. The two clusters of global-justice issue areas mentioned above allow us to focus on measurement, data collection and index formulation around nine issue areas: (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) counter-terrorism, (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, (6) anti-poverty, (7) education, (8) public health, and (9) the protection of women and children.

The first five issue areas fall into a category in which no single actor can be held directly accountable or responsible. They are issue areas that can only be tackled with through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders, to which the CBDR-RC principle applies. The last four issue areas can be grouped under a category that is concerned with all actors the world over, with, in reasonable fashion, greater attention given to the least advantaged, to which the CDDR principle applies. On the surface, the last four issue areas are primarily focused on the national level. Some may find it difficult to see the connections between these national public goods and their contribution to global public goods. In fact, on the one hand, the last four issue areas have created problems that significantly contribute to the issue of inequality at the global level, which in turn make this world unjust. On the other hand, the global community, and especially the United Nations, has taken many measures (e.g., the Sustainable Development Goals) to solve these problems in less developed countries by virtue of the motivation to build an equal, just and prosperous world (see e.g. Foa and Tanner 2012 ; IPCC 2013 ; LeBar and Slote 2016 ; UNDP 2013 , 2018 ; Wolff et al. 2011 ).

This methodology section proceeds as follows: first, we introduce the operationalization and measurement methods for each of the nine issues at the global level (see Table  2 ); second, we discuss potential data sources, which we have already explored, as well as data collection and aggregation methods; finally, we clarify some data limitations as caveats for potential users.

7 Measurement

7.1 climate change.

Global warming is a real and disastrous phenomenon, with many destructive effects. Scientists have concluded that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century. If all countries remain passive about this global challenge, the situation is going to worsen, with dramatic consequences globally. On the other hand, if countries come together and engage in concerted efforts to combat global warming, we can significantly alleviate the negative impacts of climate change on this planet.

The United Nations climate change conferences have worked hard to bring together all member states to deal with these unprecedented global challenges. Despite the recent US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the Trump Administration, other countries have not ceased their efforts to combat climate change. To measure each country’s efforts to deal with global warming is challenging and difficult. Our approach to evaluation and measurement is to focus on the financial contributions made by each country to several major global climate change funds, including the Global Environment Facility, the Special Climate Change Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund. In the meantime, we also measure each individual country’s transition to a low-carbon society by focusing on the indicators of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions per capita and carbon intensity.

7.2 Peacekeeping

World stability continues to be undermined by conflicts. Justice will remain out of reach if wars continue to be a significant feature of the international landscape. That is to say that one of the conditions of global justice is to ensure that all countries contribute to creating and maintaining peace, regionally and globally. Although, arguably, at times one single country (such as a great power) can be powerful enough to play a major role in establishing and maintaining peace in unstable areas or regions, peacekeeping and peacemaking conducted by the joint efforts of nation-states and multinational peacekeeping forces seem to be a wiser course of action. It is in this context that UN peacekeepers, with the participation in multinational joint forces, can be deployed to assist war-torn or conflict-ridden countries on their way to peace and reconstruction. Since the 1950s the track-record shows that UN peacekeeping has made significant contributions to regional and global security.

UN peacekeeping is a truly global effort to maintain international peace and security. All countries, big and small, developed and developing, can participate and make contributions. To measure a country’s effort to promote global justice by contributing to UN peacekeeping, we intend to evaluate each country’s troop and police contributions to UN peacekeeping. Needless to say, this is not the only way to measure a country’s participation in peacekeeping. However, this is arguably one of the most effective and significant ways.

7.3 Humanitarian Aid

The gap between rich and poor countries not only exists but has been widening. Narrowing this gap is a key aspect of the global justice agenda. To achieve this goal, developed countries are encouraged to provide their developing counterparts with substantial aid and assistance. A long-standing United Nations target is that developed countries should devote 0.7% of their gross national income to official development aid (ODA). But humanitarian aid should not be limited to OECD countries’ ODA. Other developing countries can also contribute to global humanitarian aid based on their capabilities, as many developing countries are currently doing. Thus, we can measure each country’s efforts to humanitarian aid by evaluating their financial contributions to global humanitarian affairs.

7.4 Counter-Terrorism

Since the outbreak of the 9/11 attack, terrorism has been viewed as a major challenge to global society and hence to global justice. Counter-terrorism efforts by global partners are a significant aspect of the global justice agenda, if only in the sense that they are meant to combat and reduce terrorist violence and its devastating effects. Given the fact that terrorism is such a contested term in domestic and international politics, we adopt the commonly-used definition of terrorism by the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism. Footnote 18 In order to assess the dimension of counter-terrorism at a global level, we divide this issue area into two aspects, namely performance and contribution.

First, we intend to focus on the performance of counter-terrorism initiatives, which will be measured by the reduction over time in the number of terrorist incidents, casualties, injuries and incidences of property damage (here it should be kept in mind that the number of terrorist incidents is not exclusively linked to the performance of counter-terrorism, it could be linked to the evolution of the context). Second, we intend to focus on the contribution of each country to global counter-terrorism efforts, which we plan to measure on the basis of membership of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), and investment in UN Counter-Terrorism Projects and Activities listed in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

7.5 Cross-National Criminal Police Cooperation

Transnational crimes can pose serious challenges to global justice as they harm the interests of citizens beyond the jurisdiction of a single nation-state. As an important part of improving global justice, fighting transnational crimes has been a major domain of global cooperation. To assess the dimension of fighting transnational crimes at a global level, we plan to focus on the contribution of countries to fighting transnational crimes. This will be measured by their membership of and financial contributions to Interpol, as well as participation in major event support teams and incident response teams. The related issue areas will include cybercrime, drug trafficking, genocide, human trafficking, money laundering, weapons smuggling, and wildlife and forest crimes.

7.6 Poverty Alleviation

As one aspect of the issue of inequality at the global level, poverty has been widely considered a major challenge to global justice for a long period of time. There are many ways in which researchers and policymakers try to measure poverty (Dhongde 2017 ). Since October 2015, the World Bank has used a poverty line of $1.90 a day at 2011 PPP to estimate global poverty. Although the problem of poverty has typically been addressed at the national level, it has strong implications for achieving equality and justice at the global level. Footnote 19 To assess the dimension of poverty from the perspective of global justice, we generally focus on two aspects of poverty alleviation.

First, in the context that enjoying basic living standards is widely viewed as an individual’s basic human right, we first focus on the performance in poverty reduction, measuring the extent to which an individual’s rights with regard to living conditions are adequately protected and improved. Following a large body of literature and some commonly-shared measurement standards, we use a set of indicators to measure the performance of a particular country in terms of poverty reduction, including nutrition, child mortality, drinking water, electricity, housing, cooking fuel, sanitation, assets, per capita house expenditure and per capita household income (converted through the consumer price index), and so on and so forth.

Second, improving the living conditions for citizens is also considered a government’s responsibility, for which we focus on a government’s effort to lift people out of poverty, measuring the extent to which a government invests its financial resources in poverty alleviation. Several indicators will be included in this measurement, for instance government budgets for poverty reduction, and government subsidies on school meals, to name just two.

7.7 Education

Education is widely considered a fundamental resource for both individuals and societies. Basic education is perceived not only as an individual’s right, but also as a government’s duty and responsibility. Although education has been widely considered as a national public good, its deficit constitutes an issue of inequality at the global level and its improvement contributes to global justice. Footnote 20 To assess the dimension of education for a country from the perspective of global justice, we generally focus on two aspects of education.

Since basic education is widely considered as an individual’s fundamental right, we first focus on the performance of basic education, measuring the extent to which an individual’s educational right is adequately protected. Following existing academic literature, we use a set of indicators to measure the performance of basic education (e.g., literacy, school enrollment and attendance, out-of-school children, and years of schooling).

Second, providing basic education to people is also broadly viewed as a government’s duty and responsibility. In order to measure this, we focus on the government’s effort to improve its basic education nationwide, measuring the extent to which a government invests its financial resources in basic education. The indicators used to measure this may include government expenditure on basic education, trained teachers in primary education, and pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools, to name just a few.

7.8 Public Health

Similar to education, the deficit in public health constitutes an issue of inequality at the global level and its improvement contributes to global justice. In measuring public health, we then follow the same method as used in measuring education and divide the dimension of health into two aspects. First, we focus on health-related performance, measuring the protection of an individual’s right to health. The indicators adopted will include mortality rate, life expectancy, nutrition, disease environmental risk factors, and immunization.

Second, we focus on a government’s effort to improve its health system. The following indicators will be used to measure this aspect: government health expenditure, health service access, health workforce, health security, and quality and safety of care.

7.9 The Protection of Women and Children

This issue area involves gender inequality and children’s protection. Protection of women and children is also broadly viewed as a government’s duty and responsibility, and its achievements largely contribute to global justice. Footnote 21 We firstly measure gender inequality from the perspective of gender gaps in resources and opportunities. The indicators used will be economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Second, we plan to measure children’s protection from the perspective of poverty alleviation, education, and public health. The indicators used will come from the above three issues, all of which involve children’s protection.

8 Data Availability

To measure the aforementioned nine issue areas, we need to take into account the suitability and availability of data sources. Ideally, the data to measure global justice must be collected by the same method and follow the same standard. In reality, however, it seems impossible to meet this criterion completely since we have nine different issues to measure and the data on each issue may be created by different actors. As an alternative means, the United Nations and its affiliated agencies, such as The World Bank and The World Health Organization, have collected rich data with regard to the nine issues at the global level. One major merit of these data is that they do not serve particular countries but global common values, and therefore are relatively neutral. Footnote 22 For specific issues, the details of data selection are as follows.

As peacekeeping, climate change and humanitarian aid are priorities of the United Nations, we can find a plethora of information and data on these from the UN and its related agencies. The peacekeeping data are summarized monthly and collected by the UN. Climate change fund information can be accessed through the UN as well. Carbon information is available via the World Bank. Humanitarian aid data is available at the Humanitarian Data Exchange, which is run by the data center of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Data on counter-terrorism will be collected and recoded from the Global Terrorism Index (Institute for Economics and Peace), Global Terrorism Database (University of Maryland), UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy), and the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF).

The data on fighting transnational crime mainly comes from Interpol and the United Nations Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention Branch. These two informative data sources provide us with raw data that allow us to construct a set of indicators about the contribution of a particular country to fighting transnational crimes.

The United Nations and the World Bank have worked on measuring global poverty since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), stated in the UN’s Millennium Declaration. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank Global Poverty Monitoring provide rich and detailed data on global poverty, which allow us to assess not only performance, but also a government’s efforts toward poverty alleviation nationwide.

The World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) offer rich information on basic education, which allows to assess not only the performance but also a government’s efforts toward basic education nationwide.

The data on health at a country level will come from both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNDP. In particular, the WHO has built a large and informative dataset on health with a long span of almost three decades at the country level.

The data on women and children also come from the World Bank, WHO and UNDP. The three informative data sources allow us to not only construct a set of indicators about gender gaps, but offer also many direct indicators to measure gender inequality at the country level.

9 Data Limitations

A large dataset will be collected, recoded, and aggregated to measure global justice. Ideally the data would measure a government’s effort and its achievements not only at the country level but also at the global level. However, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure each country’s effort and performance all at global level. For example, we have a set of informative indicators to measure each country’s effort and its achievements to provide basic education for its own citizens but not for those in other countries. But, as stated in the sections dealing with conceptualization and operational principles, domestic efforts that have global implications will be considered as contributions to human society and thus to global justice.

The second limitation is missing values. The data used in this study mainly come from the United Nations and its related agencies. Although these organizations endeavor to construct high-quality datasets, the problem of missing values, which undermines the comparability of indicators both over time and across countries, is probably unavoidable. For instance, humanitarian aid and peacekeeping data are publicly available, while this is not the case with the climate change fund data. We cannot resolve the problem of missing values if we just rely on the data from United Nations and its affiliated agencies. Footnote 23 To remedy this defect, we will also collect these data from other sources, such as international NGOs, research institutes, and yearbooks if necessary.

No data are ideal. International comparisons of global justice based on aggregated indices from different issue areas entail both conceptual and practical challenges.

Change history

10 september 2020.

The article ���Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators���.

We want to thank Charles Beitz for commenting on what makes these rights primary for justice.

We want to thank Nannerl Keohane for suggesting to us that more rights have been recognized as primary rights, but that doesn’t mean they become equivalent in importance to survival-linked rights.

Although in today’s world, a global community conscience is hard to define, and there are many differing, even clashing viewpoints on values, from a normative perspective, shared values and consensus are still necessary for global justice. We want to thank Nannerl Keohane and Robert Keohane for their comments on this issue.

We want to thank Charles Beitz for commenting on the relationship between the two kinds of respect.

Here peoples are somehow different from states or nations, as Rawls points out: “what distinguishes peoples from states—and this is crucial—is that just peoples are fully prepared to grant the very same proper respect and recognition to other peoples as equals. Their equality doesn’t mean, however, that inequalities of certain kinds are not agreed to in various cooperative institutions among peoples, such as the United Nations, ideally conceived. This recognition of inequalities, rather, parallels citizens’ accepting functional social and economic inequalities in their liberal society” (Rawls 1999 , p. 35). We want to thank Nannerl Keohane for noticing the difference.

We want to thank Darrel Moellendorf for commenting on this circumscribed account of the rights of states.

The goods based approach here focuses on the material and institutional goods that the government is obliged to provide to ensure rights. Thus, it should not be understood as consequentialism (which refers to outcome focused approaches such as utilitarianism), according to which Rawls is certainly not a goods-based theorist. It endorses the basic principles of the rights-based conceptualization of global justice, just as Rawls did in his theory of justice. And “goods” here indicates the unit of distribution. We want to thank Charles Beitz and Kok-Chor Tan for pointing out the differences. More explanation of the relationship between our rights-based and goods-based approaches will be offered later.

It should be noted that Rawls distinguishes two theories of the good. One is called the “thin theory” and the other is called the “full theory”. The purpose of the thin theory is to “secure the premises about primary goods required to arrive at the principles of justice. Once this theory is worked out and the primary goods accounted for, we are free to use the principles of justice in the further development of what I shall call the full theory of the good.” The primary good, or the thin theory of the good is common in the sense that it is desired by all individuals for the satisfaction of their specific needs.

We want to thank Charles Beitz and Mathias Risse for their comments on the Rawlsian idea of primary goods.

These two principles are, at this stage, essential to our project, as they can help to select, codify and compute those evaluative indicators. We will certainly consider adding more principles should our assessment, at a later stage, be expanded to include a wider range of areas. We want to thank Charles Beitz for reminding us of this possibility.

The UNFCCC, opened for signature June 4, 1992, 31 ILM 849 (1992), in its Preamble, declares that all parties to the Convention acknowledge that “the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions” (emphasis added). Article 3(1) of provides that “[t]he Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” This principle is reiterated in later paragraphs throughout the Convention (cf. Article 4(1), addressing nation- and region-specific development priorities, and Article 12(5) as regards the differentiated timetable set for different countries).

At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June, 1992, available at http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF , accessed on November 20, 2018. In Principle 7, it provides that “[i]n view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command”.

We want to thank Robert O. Keohane for bringing to our attention those diverging national agendas in different parts of the world.

Section I.3 (iii) and (vi), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), at http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf , accessed on December 5, 2018.

We want to thank Thomas Hale for suggesting to us a possible comparison with the principle of subsidiarity.

For a discussion of this issue, see Sandler and Arce ( 2003 ). In this respect, there is a dis/similarity between the CDDR and the doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect”. These two are similar to the extent that they obligate actors (predominantly nation-states) to provide essential goods to the residents or citizens within their scope of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the CDDR is more expansive than the latter, in the sense that the latter, as enshrined in international agreements, only prescribes the worst forms of harms to humanity (e.g. genocide, chemical weapons or other crimes against humanity). The CDDR, by way of contrast, aims to bring to our attention those efforts by nation-states that have been long taken for granted, albeit significant in their contribution to the global-justice cause. See e.g. Staunton 2018, and Sirleaf 2018. We want to thank Darrel Moellendorf for bringing this point to our attention.

We would like to thank Darrel Moellendorf for suggesting to us an authoritative definition of terrorism at the global level.

We would like to thank Nannerl Keohane and Jean Marc Coicaud for suggesting we highlight the connection between national governance and global justice.

We would like to thank Darrel Moellendorf for suggesting we discuss the criteria of data collection.

We would like to thank for Nannerl O. Keohane’s comment.

Alston, P. 1987. A Third Generation of Solidarity Rights: Progressive Development or Obfuscation of International Human Rights Law? Netherlands International Law Review 29: 307–365.

Google Scholar  

Aristotle. 1984. Politics , vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Aristotle. 2009. The Nicomachean Ethics (trans: David Ross). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arneson, R. 1989. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 56(1): 77–93.

Beitz, C.R. 1975. Justice and International Relations. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(4): 360–389.

Berlin, I. 1958. Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered Before the University of Oxford on 31 October 1958 . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brighouse, H. and I. Robeyns (eds.). 2010. Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cahill, M. 2017. Theorizing subsidiarity: Towards an ontology-sensitive approach. Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law 15 (1): 201–224.

Castro, P. 2016. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities Beyond the Nation State: How Is Differential Treatment Addressed in Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives? Transnational Environmental Law 5(2): 379–400.

Chan, W.-T. 1963. A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cohen, G.A. 2011. On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Confucius. 2018. The Analects of Confucius . Ann Arbor: Charles River Editors.

Daniels, N. 2010. Capabilities, Opportunity and Health. In Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities , ed. H. Brighouse and I. Robeyns, 131–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, M.D. 2017. Equity and the Conservation of Global Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 9(3): 339.

Dhongde, S. 2017. Measuring Global Poverty . Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-259 .

Douglass, B. 1980. The Common Good and the Public Interest. Political Theory 8(1): 103–117.

Dworkin, R. 2002. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Foa, R., and J. C. Tanner. 2012. Methodology of the Indices of Social Development. ISD Working Paper Series 2012 - 04. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://www.indsocdev.org/resources/Methodology%20of%20the%20Social%20Development%20Indices_%20jan11.pdf .

Freeman, S. 2006. Book Review—Frontiers of Justice: The Capabilities Approach Versus Contractarianism. Texas Law Review 85(2): 385–430.

Garrick, D.E. 2018. Decentralisation and drought adaptation: Applying the subsidiarity principle in transboundary river basins. International Journal of the Commons 12(1): 301–331.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (trans: Williiam Rehg). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Held, V. 1970. The Public Interest and Individual Interests . New York: Basic Books.

Hobbes, T. 2016. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy) . London: Routledge.

Hume, D. 1948. A Treatise of Human Nature. In Hume’s Moral and Political Philosophy , ed. H.D. Aiken. New York: Hafner.

Hursthouse, R., and G. Pettigrove. 2016. Virtue Ethics . Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ .

Inoue, A. 2016. Inequalities, Responsibility And Rational Capacities: A Defence of Responsibility-Sensitive Egalitarianism. Australian Journal of Political Science 51(1): 86–101.

IPCC. 2013 . Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis—Summary for Policymakers (AR5 WG1) . Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf .

Kant, I. 1970. Political Writings (trans: H. B. Nisbet). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LeBar, M., and M. Slote. 2016. Justice as a Virtue . Retrieved November 25, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/ .

Liu, Q. 2017. Justice as the Virtue of “No Unacceptable Harm to the Human”. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 10(2): 179–192.

Locke, J. 1982. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government . London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mozi. 2003. Mozi: Basic Writings (trans: Watson, Burton). New York: Columbia University Press.

Nussbaum, M. 2004. Beyond the Social Contract: Capabilities and Global Justice. Oxford Development Studies 32(1): 3–18.

Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nussbaum, M. 2011. Capabilities, Entitlements, Rights: Supplementation and Critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12(1): 23–37.

Otsuka, M. 2003. Libertarianism Without Inequality . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato. 2004. Republic (trans: Reeve, C. D. C.). Indianapolis: Hackett.

Pogge, T. 2002. Can the Capability Approach Be Justified? Philosophical Topics 30(2): 167–228.

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. 1982. Social Unity and Primary Goods. In Utilitarianism and Beyond , ed. A. Sen and B. Williams, 159–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Richardson, H.S. 2006. Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled. The Journal of Ethics 10(4): 419–462.

Roemer, J. 1998. Equality of Opportunity . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rousseau, J.-J. 1978. On the Social Contract, With Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy . New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Sandler, T. 2003. Collective Action and Transnational Terrorism. World Economy 26(6): 779–802.

Sandler, T. 2005. Collective Versus Unilateral Responses to Terrorism. Public Choice 124(1): 75–93.

Sandler, T., and D.G. Arce. 2003. Pure Public Goods Versus Commons: Benefit-Cost Duality. Land Economics 79(3): 355–368.

Sen, A. 1980. Equality of What? In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 1 . 1st ed, ed. S. McMurrin, 196–220. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Sen, A. 1990. Justice: Means Versus Freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19(2): 111–121.

Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice . Westminster: Penguin Books.

Slote, M. 1998. The Justice of Caring. Social Philosophy and Policy 15(1): 171–195.

Smith, A. 1984. The Theory of Moral Sentiments . Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Stone, C.D. 2004. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities in International Law. American Journal of International Law 98(2): 276–301.

Tan, K.-C. 2017. What is This Thing Called Global Justice? . London: Routledge.

UNDP. 2013. Human Development Report . Retrieved September 14, 2018, from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf .

UNDP. 2018. Human Development Indices and Indicators—2018 Statistical Update . Retrieved September 14, 2018, from http://www.cl.undp.org/content/dam/chile/docs/desarrollohumano/undp_cl_idh_Informe-IDH-mundial-2018-Chile.pdf .

Wolff, H., H. Chong, and M. Auffhammer. 2011. Classification, Detection and Consequences of Data Error: Evidence from the Human Development Index. Economic Journal 121: 843–870.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html .

van Riel, B. 2009. Subsidiarity and economic reform in Europe. Economist-Netherlands 157 (2): 265–266.

Zhao, Tingyang. 2009. Ontology of coexistence: Relations and hearts (gongzai cunzailun: renji yu renxin). CASS Journal of Philosophy (zhexue yanjiu) 2009(8).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following scholars for their valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier draft of this paper: Robert Keohane, Nannerl Keohane, Charles R. Beitz, Mathias Risse, Kok-Chor Tan, Yannick Glemarec, Darrel Moellendorf, Ariel Colonomos, and Thomas Hale.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

Sujian Guo, Xi Lin, Jean-Marc Coicaud, Su Gu, Yanfeng Gu, Qingping Liu, Xuan Qin, Guodong Sun, Zhongyuan Wang & Chunman Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xi Lin .

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.

This is a group project of Fudan IAS. All members of the group named as authors contributed equally to the study and ranked alphabetically.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Guo, S., Lin, X., Coicaud, JM. et al. Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators. Fudan J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 12 , 511–546 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00267-1

Download citation

Received : 18 June 2019

Accepted : 13 July 2019

Published : 03 September 2020

Issue Date : December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-019-00267-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Global justice
• Rights based
• Goods based
• Virtue based
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Essay on Social Justice

Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Justice in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Social Justice

Understanding social justice.

Social justice is the fair treatment of all people in society. It’s about making sure everyone has equal opportunities, irrespective of their background or status.

Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is important because it promotes equality. It helps to reduce disparities in wealth, access to resources, and social privileges.

Role of Individuals

Every person can contribute to social justice. By treating others fairly, respecting diversity, and standing against discrimination, we can promote social justice.

In conclusion, social justice is vital for a balanced society. It ensures everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life.

250 Words Essay on Social Justice

Social justice, a multifaceted concept, is the fair distribution of opportunities, privileges, and resources within a society. It encompasses dimensions like economic parity, gender equality, environmental justice, and human rights. The core of social justice is the belief that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion.

The Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is pivotal in fostering a harmonious society. It ensures that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life and can exercise their rights without discrimination. It is the cornerstone of peace and stability in any society. Without social justice, the divide between different socio-economic classes widens, leading to social unrest.

Challenges to Social Justice

Despite its importance, achieving social justice is fraught with challenges. Systemic issues like discrimination, poverty, and lack of access to quality education and healthcare are significant roadblocks. These challenges are deeply ingrained in societal structures and require collective efforts to overcome.

The Role of Individuals in Promoting Social Justice

Every individual plays a crucial role in promoting social justice. Through conscious efforts like advocating for equal rights, supporting policies that promote equality, and standing against discrimination, individuals can contribute to building a just society.

In conclusion, social justice is a fundamental principle for peaceful coexistence within societies. Despite the challenges, each individual’s conscious effort can contribute significantly to achieving this noble goal. The journey towards social justice is long and arduous, but it is a path worth treading for the betterment of humanity.

500 Words Essay on Social Justice

Introduction to social justice, origins and evolution of social justice.

The concept of social justice emerged during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions as a counter to the vast disparities in wealth and social capital. It was a call for societal and structural changes, aiming to minimize socio-economic differences. The term was first used by Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli in the mid-19th century, influenced by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Since then, the concept has evolved and expanded, encompassing issues like environmental justice, health equity, and human rights.

The Pillars of Social Justice

Social justice rests on four essential pillars: human rights, access, participation, and equity. Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. Access involves equal opportunities in terms of resources, rights, goods, and services. Participation emphasizes the importance of all individuals contributing to and benefiting from economic, social, political, and cultural life. Equity ensures the fair distribution of resources and opportunities.

Social Justice in Today’s World

Despite the progress, numerous challenges to social justice persist. Systemic and structural discrimination, political disenfranchisement, economic inequality, and social stratification are just a few. Moreover, the rise of populism and nationalism worldwide has further complicated the fight for social justice, as these ideologies often thrive on division and inequality.

Promoting social justice requires collective action. Individuals can contribute by becoming more aware of the injustices around them, advocating for policies that promote equity, and standing up against discrimination. Education plays a crucial role in this process, as it can foster a deeper understanding of social justice issues and equip individuals with the tools to effect change.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Individual and Society — Social Justice

Essays on Social Justice

Prompt samples for crafting a social justice essay.

Starting with the right prompt can set the tone for a powerful social justice essay. Prompts such as "Analyze the impact of systemic racism on education" or "Explore the role of social media in social justice movements" encourage critical thinking and provide a clear direction for your research and argumentation.

Brainstorming and Selecting a Compelling Social Justice Essay Topic

Choosing an impactful topic is crucial for writing an engaging social justice essay. Consider the following points during your brainstorming session:

• Relevance: Select a topic that is timely and resonates with current social justice issues.
• Passion: Choose an issue you are passionate about. Authentic interest will enhance your writing.
• Originality: Aim for a unique angle or perspective to stand out.
• Researchability: Ensure there are ample resources and research available on your chosen topic.

Innovative Social Justice Essay Topics

Avoid common and broad topics by focusing on specific issues. Here are several thought-provoking essay topics:

• The Intersectionality of Gender, Race, and Class in Education Disparities
• Critical Analysis of Environmental Justice in Urban Planning
• The Influence of Art and Culture in Propagating Social Justice Movements
• Evaluating the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in Criminal Justice Reform
• The Role of Technology in Enhancing Accessibility and Advocacy

Inspirational Phrases and Paragraph Samples for Your Social Justice Essay

Here are examples of paragraphs and phrases to inspire your writing and help structure your essay:

Analyzing the Role of Social Media in Amplifying Social Justice Movements

Social media platforms have emerged as powerful tools for social justice advocacy, enabling grassroots movements to gain global attention. This section explores how digital activism transforms public discourse and mobilizes support for social justice causes.

The Critical Impact of Environmental Injustice on Marginalized Communities

Environmental injustice perpetuates inequality, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. This analysis delves into case studies where environmental policies have failed these communities and proposes solutions for equitable environmental governance.

Exploring Intersectionality as a Framework for Social Justice

Intersectionality provides a comprehensive approach to understanding the multifaceted nature of oppression. By examining the intersections of race, gender, and class, this essay highlights the importance of an inclusive social justice movement.

Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: a Better Society

Power and privilege: an examination of societal structures, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Community Advocacy: Building Bridges for Collective Empowerment

A definition of social justice, political and social injustice in america, environment for social justice and equality, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Death Penalty and Social Justice in The United States

Injustice in treatment of disabled people in society, critical analysis of me too movement, social justice: triple talaq and muslim men and women in india, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Biblical Prophets' Teachings on The Love of God in Social Justice

The issues of death penalties and social justice in the united states, social justice orientation and multicultural environment, my attitude towards plato’s republic and the idea of state’s justice, romanticism and realism's approach to social justice, the connection of "station eleven" and other books to concepts of social justice, the importance of resistance to injustice in just mercy, social justice as the elusive goal of the communist manifesto, the issue of american racism in stevenson’s just mercy, importance of rebellion in the world, tension between benevolence and morals, why the approach by richard spencer on white nationalism and social justice is wrong, the topic of eugenics and church's view on social justice, the poverty and social justice folklore in appalachia, a region in the eastern united states of america, the role of canadian charter of rights and freedoms, the major projects, success, and orientation towards social justice of the organization samaritan's purse, overview of advantages and disadvantages of confidentiality, an overview of history and definition of mob lynching, "environmental and social justice movement" in the book blessed unrest by paul hawken, overview of social control theories.

Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.

In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society. In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation.

The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.

The five main principles of social justice include access to resources, equity, participation, diversity, and human rights.

1. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International journal of psychology, 35(2), 117-125. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/002075900399411) 2. Zajda, J., Majhanovich, S., & Rust, V. (2006). Introduction: Education and social justice. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale de l'Education, 9-22. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/29737064) 3. Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of educational administration. (https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09578230610664814/full/html) 4. Leach, M., Stirling, A. C., & Scoones, I. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social justice (p. 232). Taylor & Francis. (https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/52748) 5. Kluegel, J. R., Mason, D. S., & Wegener, B. (1995). Social justice and political change. De Gruyter.. (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110868944/html) 6. Duff, W. M., Flinn, A., Suurtamm, K. E., & Wallace, D. A. (2013). Social justice impact of archives: a preliminary investigation. Archival Science, 13, 317-348. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-012-9198-x) 7. McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M., ... & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational administration quarterly, 44(1), 111-138. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013161X07309470?journalCode=eaqa) 8. Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123-135. (https://academic.oup.com/isr/article-abstract/4/2/123/1794864) 9. Apple, M. W. (2009). Global crises, social justice, and education. In Global crises, social justice, and education (pp. 9-32). Routledge. (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203861448-5/global-crises-social-justice-education-michael-apple) 10. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-03506-030)

Relevant topics

• Personal Identity
• Discourse Community
• Media Analysis
• Sociological Imagination
• Cultural Appropriation
• American Identity
• Sex, Gender and Sexuality

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Social Justice

Introduction to Social Justice

Social justice, a cornerstone of a fair and inclusive society, seeks to address systemic inequalities and promote equitable opportunities for all. In contemporary times, its significance resonates profoundly as we grapple with persistent issues of discrimination and disparity. Consider the stark example of racial injustice, exemplified by events like the tragic killing of George Floyd in 2020. Such incidents underscore the urgent need to comprehensively examine societal structures and implement reforms to dismantle entrenched biases. This essay explores the many aspects of social justice, including its foundations, the role of institutions, the power of intersectionality, and ways to create positive change.

Historical Context

To comprehend the evolution of social justice, one must delve into its historical roots, where the struggle for equity and fairness has woven its intricate tapestry. Throughout history, marginalized groups have faced systemic discrimination, establishing a backdrop against which contemporary social justice movements emerge.

Watch our Demo Courses and Videos

Valuation, Hadoop, Excel, Mobile Apps, Web Development & many more.

• Early Philosophical Roots: Social justice finds its roots in ancient philosophical discussions, with thinkers like Aristotle and Plato contemplating the principles of fairness and equity in society.
• Enlightenment Era: The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries brought forth ideas of individual rights and equality, laying the groundwork for social justice.
• Industrial Revolution: The societal upheavals brought about by the Industrial Revolution exposed stark economic inequalities, prompting social thinkers like Karl Marx to advocate for a more just distribution of wealth.
• Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s): The Civil Rights Movement in the United States marked a pivotal period, challenging racial segregation and discrimination and advocating for equal rights for African Americans.
• Feminist Movement (19th century-present): The feminist Movement sought to address gender disparities, pushing for women’s rights in areas such as voting, education, and workplace opportunities.
• Post-World War II Reforms: The aftermath of World War II witnessed efforts to establish international human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of dignity, equality, and justice on a global scale.
• Globalization and Social Justice: With the advent of globalization in the late 20th century, discussions on social justice expanded to encompass issues of economic disparity, labor rights, and access to resources on a global scale.
• Emergence of Intersectionality (late 20th century): Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced the concept of intersectionality, emphasizing the interconnected nature of social identities and the need to simultaneously address multiple forms of oppression.
• Digital Age and Social Activism (21st century): The emergence of technology and social media platforms has facilitated global awareness and activism, allowing for widespread social justice movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo.

Importance of Social Justice

Social justice is the cornerstone of a harmonious and equitable society, which fosters unity, dignity, and equal opportunities for all individuals. Its significance resonates across various dimensions, impacting not only the lives of marginalized communities but the collective well-being of society as a whole.

• Equality and Fairness: Social justice strives to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensures that everyone, regardless of their background, enjoys equal access to rights, opportunities, and resources. This commitment to fairness fosters a more just and inclusive society.
• Social Cohesion: By addressing systemic inequalities, social justice promotes unity and harmony within communities. Perceptions of fair and inclusive treatment strengthen social bonds, reducing social tensions and fostering a sense of shared responsibility.
• Economic Stability: A socially just society aims to narrow economic disparities, creating an environment where wealth and resources are distributed more equitably. This enhances the standard of living for marginalized populations and contributes to overall economic stability.
• Human Dignity: Social justice recognizes and upholds the inherent dignity of every individual. It seeks to eliminate prejudices and stereotypes, allowing people to be seen and treated with respect, regardless of race, gender, or socio-economic status.
• Innovation and Progress: Inclusive societies benefit from diverse perspectives and talents. Social justice encourages the full utilization of human potential, fostering innovation and progress as individuals from various backgrounds contribute to the advancement of society.
• Conflict Reduction: Addressing social injustices contributes to reducing social unrest and conflicts. When people feel that their grievances are acknowledged and addressed, the likelihood of social discord decreases, creating a more stable and peaceful community.
• Global Impact: Social justice extends beyond national borders in an interconnected world. Addressing global inequalities, such as poverty and human rights violations, contributes to a more just and compassionate international community.

Foundations of Social Injustice

Social injustice finds its roots in a complex web of historical, systemic, and individual factors that perpetuate discrimination and inequality. Examining the foundations of social injustice is crucial to understanding the challenges faced by marginalized groups and devising effective strategies for positive change.

Discrimination and Prejudice:

• Racism: Deep-seated racial prejudices have historically marginalized certain ethnic groups, perpetuating stereotypes and limiting opportunities based on skin color.
• Sexism: Gender-based discrimination manifests in unequal treatment, pay disparities, and limited access to opportunities, reinforcing traditional gender roles.
• Homophobia: Discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community stems from societal biases, contributing to unequal rights, social stigma, and exclusion.

Economic Disparities:

• Wealth Inequality: The unequal distribution of resources and opportunities, often rooted in systemic economic structures, exacerbates disparities between the affluent and the impoverished.
• Access to Education and Employment: Discriminatory hiring practices and limited access to high-quality education hinder social mobility, prolonging poverty cycles.

Legal and Institutional Biases:

• Criminal Justice System: Racial profiling, harsh sentencing, and unequal treatment within the legal system contribute to the over-representation of certain groups in prisons and perpetuate cycles of injustice.
• Legal Protections: Inadequate legal safeguards or discriminatory laws can perpetuate inequality, leaving certain groups vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination.

Social and Cultural Norms:

• Stereotypes and Preconceptions: Cultural norms and stereotypes shape societal attitudes, reinforcing biased beliefs that contribute to discrimination against specific groups.
• Systemic Marginalization: Institutions and societal structures may unintentionally perpetuate marginalization, hindering equal opportunities and representation.

Historical Legacy:

• Colonialism and Imperialism: The historical exploitation of specific regions and populations has left a lasting impact, contributing to ongoing social and economic disparities.
• Inherited Injustice: Past discriminatory practices, such as slavery or forced displacement, have left a legacy that continues to affect marginalized communities today.

Identifying Social Justice

Social justice is a multifaceted concept encompassing principles and practices to create a fair, inclusive, and equitable society. Recognizing social justice involves understanding and addressing systemic inequalities across various spheres, including:

• Equality and Non-Discrimination: Social justice promotes the idea that every individual should have equal opportunities, rights, and treatment, regardless of factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. It seeks to eliminate discriminatory practices that hinder equal participation and access.
• Fair Distribution of Resources: The equitable allocation of resources, such as opportunities for economic growth, healthcare, and education, is a crucial component of social justice. It advocates for policies bridging gaps between privileged and marginalized groups, ensuring everyone can access essential services.
• Human Rights Protection: Social justice emphasizes protecting and promoting fundamental human rights for all individuals. This involves ensuring the right to a fair trial, freedom from discrimination, and participation in community cultural, social, and political life.
• Inclusion and Diversity: Social justice recognizes and celebrates diversity in all its forms. It encourages including individuals from different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences, fostering environments where everyone’s contributions are valued.
• Intersectionality: Identifying social justice involves acknowledging the interconnected nature of various social identities and experiences. Intersectionality emphasizes the need for all-encompassing, inclusive solutions by recognizing that people may experience numerous forms of discrimination depending on criteria, including race, gender, class, and more.
• Advocacy for the Marginalized: Social justice entails advocating for the rights and well-being of underprivileged and oppressed communities. This includes challenging systemic barriers and working towards dismantling structures that perpetuate inequality.
• Community Empowerment: Social justice efforts focus on empowering communities to advocate for their rights and create positive change. This empowerment involves education, awareness, and the development of sustainable initiatives that uplift communities facing systemic challenges.
• Legal and Institutional Reforms: Identifying social justice requires an examination of existing laws, policies, and institutions to ensure they promote fairness and equity. Advocacy for legal and institutional reforms is crucial for creating a just and inclusive societal framework.

Role of Institutions

Institutions play a crucial role in pursuing social justice in shaping and influencing the structures that govern society. These institutions, encompassing legal, educational, economic, and cultural entities, have the power to either perpetuate or challenge systemic inequalities. Understanding their role is essential for creating a more just and equitable society.

• Legal Frameworks: Institutions, particularly legal systems, play a fundamental role in shaping and enforcing social justice. They establish anti-discrimination laws, human rights protections, and mechanisms for addressing injustices.
• Criminal Justice System: Ensuring a fair and unbiased criminal justice system is crucial for social justice. Institutions must work to eliminate systemic biases, promote equal treatment, and address issues such as racial profiling and disproportionate sentencing.
• Educational Institutions: Schools and universities play a pivotal role in promoting social justice by fostering inclusive environments, implementing diverse curricula, and addressing disparities in educational access. They contribute to breaking the cycle of inequality by providing equal opportunities for all students.
• Employment and Labor Institutions: Ensuring workplace equality and fair labor practices is essential for social justice. Institutions are responsible for implementing and enforcing policies that prevent discrimination, ensure fair wages, and promote a diverse and inclusive workforce.
• Government Agencies: Various government agencies have the task of developing and implementing policies that address social disparities. These include initiatives related to healthcare access, affordable housing, and social welfare programs aimed at reducing inequality.
• Media and Representation: Institutional control over media outlets and representation shapes public perceptions. Promoting diversity and avoiding stereotypes in media portrayals contribute to social justice by challenging biased narratives and fostering understanding.
• Financial Institutions: Banking and financial institutions can contribute to social justice by addressing economic disparities. Responsible lending practices, financial inclusion initiatives, and support for community development projects are crucial in this regard.
• Healthcare Institutions: Ensuring equal access to healthcare services is vital to social justice. Institutions in the healthcare sector must work to eliminate disparities, provide culturally competent care, and address systemic issues affecting marginalized communities.
• Nonprofit and Advocacy Organizations: Institutions within the nonprofit sector often catalyze social change. These organizations work to raise awareness, advocate for policy reforms, and provide support to marginalized communities, contributing to a more just society.
• International Institutions: Organizations such as the United Nations and regional bodies promote global social justice. They set standards, facilitate cooperation among nations, and address issues like poverty, human rights violations, and environmental justice on a worldwide scale.

Activism and Advocacy

Activism and advocacy are powerful tools for driving social change, challenging systemic injustices, and promoting equality. Examining key movements and campaigns provides insights into the impact of collective action in addressing social justice issues.

• Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1950s-1960s):
• Activism: Led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., activists employed nonviolent protests, boycotts, and civil disobedience to challenge racial segregation and discrimination.
• Advocacy: The civil rights movement successfully fought for landmark legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 & the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation sought to remove institutional racism.
• #BlackLivesMatter Movement (Global, 2013-present):
• Activism: Sparked by the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s killer, #BlackLivesMatter gained momentum in response to police violence against Black individuals. Activists utilize social media, protests, and advocacy to demand an end to systemic racism.
• Advocacy: The movement has prompted discussions on police reform, increased awareness of racial injustice, and influenced policy changes at local and national levels.
• LGBTQ+ Rights Movement (Global, ongoing):
• Activism: Activists worldwide have fought for LGBTQ+ rights through Pride parades, protests, and awareness campaigns. The Stonewall riots in 1969 marked a pivotal moment in the movement’s history.
• Advocacy: Successful advocacy efforts have led to legal recognition of same-sex marriage in various countries, anti-discrimination laws, and increased visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals.
• Environmental Justice Movement (Global, ongoing):
• Activism: Grassroots movements, such as the Sunrise Movement, focus on addressing environmental injustices, advocating for climate action, and holding corporations and governments accountable for their impact on marginalized communities.
• Advocacy: These activists prioritize environmental justice policies, recognizing the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities.
• Me Too Movement (Global, 2017-present):
• Activism: The Me Too movement, initiated by survivors of sexual harassment and assault, gained global attention through social media, encouraging survivors to share their experiences and hold perpetrators accountable.
• Advocacy: The movement has sparked conversations about consent, workplace policies, and legal reform, prompting institutions to address and prevent sexual harassment.
• Deep-rooted Systemic Inequalities: Overcoming centuries-old systemic inequalities poses a significant challenge. Historical injustices, ingrained biases, and discriminatory structures persist, hindering efforts to create a truly equitable society.
• Resistance to Change: Resistance from individuals, institutions, and systems invested in maintaining the status quo is a formidable obstacle. The reluctance to relinquish power and privilege often slows down or hinders progress toward social justice.
• Lack of Access to Education: Unequal access to quality education perpetuates social disparities. Limited educational opportunities, particularly for marginalized communities, hinder the development of skills and perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality.
• Discrimination and Prejudice: Ongoing discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other factors remains a significant challenge. Overcoming deeply rooted prejudices requires sustained efforts to change societal attitudes and foster inclusivity.
• Economic Disparities: Wealth inequality and limited economic opportunities for marginalized groups contribute to social injustice. Addressing economic disparities requires comprehensive policies that ensure fair wages, employment opportunities, and access to financial resources.
• Inadequate Legal Protections: Despite legal frameworks promoting social justice, gaps and loopholes exist that allow for discriminatory practices. Strengthening and enforcing legal protections is crucial for combating systemic injustices.
• Intersectionality Challenges: Recognizing and addressing the intersectionality of various forms of discrimination is complex. Individuals often face multiple layers of disadvantage, and ensuring comprehensive solutions requires a nuanced understanding of intersecting identities.
• Cultural and Ideological Differences: Differing cultural norms and ideologies can impede efforts to establish a universal understanding of social justice. Bridging these gaps requires respectful dialogue, education, and a commitment to shared values.
• Global Injustices: Addressing social justice worldwide faces challenges such as geopolitical power imbalances, unequal resource distribution, and differing economic development levels. Coordinated international efforts are essential to tackle these complex issues.
• Limited Representation: Underrepresentation of marginalized groups in positions of power and decision-making exacerbates social injustice. Achieving true representation involves breaking barriers, challenging stereotypes, and promoting diverse voices in leadership roles.
• Environmental Injustice: The disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on vulnerable communities poses a unique challenge. Ensuring environmental justice requires equitably addressing issues like pollution, climate change, and access to clean resources.

Case Studies

Analyzing specific case studies provides concrete examples of social justice issues and the initiatives undertaken to address them. Here are two case studies representing different aspects of social justice:

• Affirmative Action in University Admissions (United States):

In the United States, affirmative action has been a contentious policy aimed at addressing historical and systemic discrimination in university admissions. This program aims to boost the proportion of underrepresented minorities in higher education, including African Americans and Hispanics. However, it has faced legal challenges and debates over whether it amounts to reverse discrimination.

Background:

• In the 1960s, the government implemented affirmative action laws to address historical injustices and promote diversity in educational institutions.
• Critics argue that affirmative action may lead to the unfair exclusion of qualified individuals from majority groups, while proponents emphasize its role in addressing systemic inequalities.
• The case of Fisher v. University of Texas in 2016 highlighted the ongoing legal battles surrounding affirmative action.
• Universities continue to grapple with balancing fostering diversity and avoiding discriminatory practices.
• Marriage Equality (Global Perspective):

The struggle for marriage equality serves as a global case study in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The movement has sought to secure legal recognition and equal rights for same-sex couples in various countries.

• Many countries historically denied same-sex couples the right to marry, often rooted in discriminatory laws and societal biases.
• Activists globally advocated for marriage equality as a fundamental human right, challenging prevailing norms and attitudes.
• Landmark cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States (2015) and the legalization of same-sex marriage in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom reflect significant progress.
• The movement has secured legal rights and contributed to changing societal perceptions around LGBTQ+ relationships.

The Path Forward

Navigating the path toward a more socially just society requires a multifaceted and collaborative approach. As we confront systemic injustices and work towards dismantling oppressive structures, several key strategies emerge to guide the way forward.

• Educational Reform: Implement comprehensive changes in educational curricula to incorporate diverse perspectives, histories, and contributions, fostering empathy and understanding.
• Media Representation: Encourage media outlets to portray a more accurate and inclusive depiction of diverse communities, breaking stereotypes and promoting positive narratives.
• Policy Overhaul: Advocate for legislative changes that address systemic inequalities, such as reforming criminal justice systems, implementing anti-discrimination laws, and promoting economic policies that reduce wealth gaps.
• Community Empowerment: Support grassroots initiatives that empower marginalized communities economically, socially, and politically, promoting self-sufficiency and active participation in decision-making processes.
• Corporate Accountability: Encourage businesses to adopt inclusive hiring practices, equal pay policies, and sustainable practices, fostering workplace environments that reflect diversity and equity.
• Civic Engagement: Promote civic education and engagement to empower individuals to actively participate in democratic processes, advocating for policies that promote social justice.
• Global Solidarity: Foster international collaboration to address global issues such as poverty, climate change, and human rights violations, recognizing that social justice is a shared responsibility.
• Technology for Good: Leverage technology to create platforms that amplify marginalized voices, facilitate access to information, and bridge digital divides, ensuring equal opportunities in the digital era.
• Community Policing: Advocate for community-oriented policing models that prioritize dialogue, trust-building, and cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
• Continuous Dialogue: Encourage open and respectful conversations about social justice issues, creating spaces for dialogue that challenge assumptions, break down barriers, and build bridges between diverse perspectives.

Pursuing social justice is imperative for building a fair and compassionate society. As we navigate the complexities of discrimination and inequality, it becomes evident that a collective commitment to change is necessary. By addressing historical injustices, advocating for policy reforms, embracing diversity, and fostering inclusive practices, we pave the way for a more equitable future. The path forward requires persistent dedication, open dialogue, and a shared responsibility to dismantle systemic barriers. Through these concerted efforts, we can only create a world where every individual is afforded dignity, opportunity, and a genuine sense of belonging.

*Please provide your correct email id. Login details for this Free course will be emailed to you

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Valuation, Hadoop, Excel, Web Development & many more.

Forgot Password?

This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to our Privacy Policy

Explore 1000+ varieties of Mock tests View more

Submit Next Question

Early-Bird Offer: ENROLL NOW

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Global Social Justice and Education

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Deliberative Democracy and Conflict Follow Following
• Political and Economic Development Follow Following
• Transparency and Good Governance Follow Following
• Global Citizenship Education Follow Following
• Global Citizenship Follow Following
• New Models Of Participatory And Direct Democracy Follow Following
• Peace and Development Follow Following
• Democracy and Citizenship Education Follow Following
• Tax Justice Follow Following
• Cosmopolitan Democracy Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thomas Pogge

Yale Philosophy Department

Publications on Global Justice

“ Promoting Green Technologies for Low-Income Countries: An Ecological Impact Fund ” in Österreichische Entwicklungspolitik 2023 , Hrsg. Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (ÖFSE): Green Development Finance? From Climate Crisis to Global Justice (Wien: Südwind-Verl. 2024), 35–42.

“ Freedom, Poverty, and Impact Rewards ” in Social Philosophy and Policy Volume 40, Issue 1 (Summer 2023), 210–232, published online 05 February 2024.

“Green Technologies for Lower-Income Countries: An Ecological Impact Fund” in Emine Cengiz – Ceyhun Akın Cengiz, eds.: İKLİM KRİZİ ÜZERİNE FELSEFİ YAKLAŞIMLAR (Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık 2023), 113–135.    Turkish

“ The African Union – Rising ” in Journal ASAP Vol. 3 No. 1 (2023), 57–60.

“ Poverty ” in Mortimer Sellers and Stephan Kirste, eds.: Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (Dordrecht: Springer 2023), published online 06 December 2022.

“ An Ecological Impact Fund ” in Green and Low-Carbon Economy 2023, Vol. 1(1) 15–21, published online 13 January 2023.

“My business and the common good” in LSi International Journal of Business and Economics , 1/1, August 2022, 9–18.

“Foreword” in Michal Apollo and Pahlaj Moolio, eds.: Poverty and Development: Problems and Prospects (Bristol & Jackson: Channel View Publications 2022), xvii–xxii.

“ Welcome to Journal ASAP ” in Journal ASAP , Issue 1, 1:1 (July 2021), 1–23.

“Sustainable Development Goals: Framework and Progress” in Habib Zafarullah and Ahmed Shafiqul Huque, eds.: Handbook of Development Policy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2021), 147–158.

“ A new deal after COVID-19 ,” authored with Krishen Mehta, Globalizations , 21 June 2021.

“ Can Liberalism Envision a Widely Acceptable World Order? ” in Yun-han Chu and Yongnian Zheng, eds.: The Decline of the Western-Centric World and the Emerging New Global Order (Abingdon & New York: Routledge 2021), Chapter 6.

“Global Ethics and Global Justice” in Jean-Marc Coicaud and Lynette E. Sieger, eds.: Conversations on Justice from National, International, and Global Perspectives: Dialogues with Leading Thinkers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2019), 167–194.

“ Fighting global poverty ,” in International Journal of Law in Context , volume 13, special issue 4 (Global Social Indicators: Constructing Transnational Legitimacy), December 2017, pp. 512-526, published online January 3, 2018.

“The Enduring Legacy of Western Dominance” in Surendra Munshi, ed.: Democracy under Threat (New Delhi: Oxford University Press 2017), 196–208.

“ Assessing the sustainable development goals from a human rights perspective ,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, in Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , 32/2 (2016), 83–97, published online July 1, 2016.

“The Hunger Games” in Food Ethics , volume 1, issue 1, 9–27; first online June 3, 2016, freely downloadable at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41055-016-0006-9?view=classic .

“A Critique of the Sustainable Development Goals’ Potential to Realize the Human Rights of All: Why being better than the MDGs is not good enough,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, in Bob Deacon ed. Social Policy and the Transformative Potential of the SDGs , special issue of the Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy .   Draft

“Measuring Poverty: A Proposal,” authored with Scott Wisor, in Matthew Adler and Marc Fleurbaey, eds.: Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016), 645–676.   Draft

“ World hunger books are cooked ,” Guest Editorial, World Nutrition July-August 2015, Volume 6, Number 7-8, 555–557, also available at http://wphna.org/past-issues/.

“ The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as Drafted: Nice Idea, Poor Execution ,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, Washington International Law Journal 24/3 (June 2015), 571–587.

“ Illicit Financial Outflows as a Drag on Human Rights Realization in Developing Countries ” in Global Financial Integrity, ed.: Illicit Financial Flows: The Most Damaging Economic Condition Facing the Developing World (Washington D.C.: Global Financial Integrity 2015), 7–19.

“Concluding Remarks” in Hitoshi Nasu and Kim Rubinstein, eds.: Legal Perspectives on Security Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2015), 323–37.

“ The Sustainable Development Goals: a plan for building a better world? ,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, Journal of Global Ethics 11/1 (2015), 56–64, published online March 13, 2015.

“The Progressive Potential of Human Rights” in Susanne Kaul and David Kim, eds.: Imagining Human Rights (Berlin: de Gruyter 2015), 35–53.

“ Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World’s Poor? Responses to Four Critics ” in Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal , 17:1 (2014), 74–87.     Here is the original article.

“Concluding Remarks: Inequality as a Threat to Allegiance” in Fiona Jenkins, Mark Nolan and Kim Rubenstein, eds.: Allegiance and Identity in a Globalized World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014), 568–89.

“ International Law Between Two Futures ,” editorial, Journal of International Dispute Settlement , 2014, 5 (3), 432–437, first published online September 15, 2014.

“ Rethinking the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Eight Ways to End Poverty Now ,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, in Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric (7) 2014, 3–11.

“ ‘The Donors’ Dilemma’ – Addressing the Structural Roots of Persistent Underdevelopment ,” in Andy Sumner and Tom Kirk, eds.: The Donors’ Dilemma: Emergence, Convergence and the Future of Aid (Durham UK: Global Policy Institute 2014), ch. 16, published online January 22nd, 2014.

“ Global Tax Justice and Global Justice ,” authored with Gillian Brock, in Moral Philosophy and Politics 1/1 (May 2014), Special Issue Global Tax Justice , 1–15.

“Dignity and Global Justice” in Marcus Düwell, Jens Braarvig, Roger Brownsword, and Dietmar Mieth, eds.: The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014), 477–483 (Ch. 52).   Japanese   Spanish

    Abstract : With strong resonance across cultures, the word “dignity” has become increasingly prominent in international law and in discussions of global justice. It is used in two distinct but closely related senses. In one sense, dignity is a high worth which all human beings possess as human beings and which commands that they be treated with respect and consideration. In another sense, dignity is a characteristic of human lives that, for many, remains yet to be achieved. Because human beings have dignity in the first sense, it is imperative to enable them to lead a life in dignity. This paper explicates the two related senses of “dignity” and explores how they can inform and support a conception of global justice and efforts at its realization.

“ New Millennium Development Goals: A New Version, an Old Wish List ,” authored with Mitu Sengupta, in Economic & Political Weekly September 28, 2013 Vol XLVIII No 39, 23–25.

“Concluding Reflections,” in Gillian Brock, ed.: Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism: Critiques, Defenses, Reconceptualizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013), 294–320.

“ How We Count Hunger Matters ,” authored with Frances Moore Lappé, Jennifer Clapp, Molly Anderson, Robin Broad, Ellen Messer, and Timothy Wise, Ethics & International Affairs , 27/3 (2013), 251–259.   Spanish

“ Universal Agenda on the Multiple Dimensions of Poverty ,” authored with Nicole Rippin, background research paper submitted to the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda , May 2013.

“ Transcending the Washington View of Development ,” in Saju Chackalackal, ed.: Towards a Strong Global Economic System: Revealing the Logic of Gratuitousness in the Market Economy (Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications 2013), 73–101.

“ Poverty and Violence ,” in Law, Ethics and Philosophy 1/1 (2013), 87–111.   Spanish

    Abstract : Citizens of affluent countries bear a far greater responsibility for world poverty than they typically realise. This is so because poverty is more severe, more widespread and more avoidable than officially acknowledged and also because it is substantially aggravated by supranational institutional arrangements that are designed and imposed by the governments and elites of the more powerful states. It may seem that this analysis of world poverty implies that citizens of affluent countries have forfeited their right not to be killed in the course of a redistributive war and that such a war would be both just and permissible. In fact, however, it has none of these three implications. This finding should be welcomed insofar as violence and macho talk of violence are in our world highly counterproductive responses to the injustice of poverty.

“Global Poverty as an Institutional Human Rights Violation,” Die Neue Gesellschaft Frankfurter Hefte 1/2013, 27–32.  German

“Poverty, Hunger and Cosmetic Progress,” in Malcolm Langford, Andy Sumner and Alicia Ely Yamin, eds.: The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2013), 209–231.   Spanish   Spanish (Mexico)

“ Cosmopolitanism: a Path to Peace and Justice ” in Journal of East-West Thought , No. 4, Vol. 2, December 2012, 9–32.

“ Outreach, Impact, Collaboration: Why Academics Should Join to Stand Against Poverty ,” authored with Luis Cabrera, in Ethics and International Affairs , Special Issue: Academics Stand Against Poverty, 26/2 (2012), 163–182.    Spanish

“Concluding Remarks: Discourse versus Strategy” in Brad Jessup and Kim Rubenstein: Environmental Discourses in Public and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012), 436–447.

“ Poverty, Human Rights and the Global Order: Framing the Post-2015 Agenda ,” Social Science Research Network , April 26, 2012.

“Divided against Itself: Aspiration and Reality of International Law” in James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi, eds.: The Cambridge Companion to International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012), 373–397.

“ Nanoscience, ethics and progress: The poor and advanced technologies ,” authored with Layne Hartsell and John Weckert, 2011 International Conference on Nanoscience, Technology and Societal Implications (NSTSI) , December 2011.

“ Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World’s Poor? ” in Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal 14:2 (2011), 1–33: Winner of the 2013 Gregory Kavka Prize in political philosophy administered by the American Philosophical Association; also in Thomas Pogge and Luis Cabrera: Perspectives on Global Poverty (New Delhi: Academics Stand Against Poverty and Developing Countries Research Centre 2011), 1–39; revised version in Jens Holst, ed.: Global Social Protection Scheme: Moving from Charity to Solidarity (Frankfurt: Medico International and Merelbeke: Hélène de Beir Foundation 2012), 60–76; revised version in David Kinley, Wojciech Sadurski, and Kevin Walton, eds.: Human Rights: Old Problems, New Possibilities (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2013), 40–72 and reprinted in Law of Ukraine 4/2013, 163–185; revised version in Helmut P. Gaisbauer, Gottfried Schweiger, and Clemens Sedmak, eds.: Ethical Issues in Poverty Alleviation (Cham: Springer 2016), 17–42.       Here are responses to critics.   Hindi   Chinese   Ukrainian   Spanish   Italian   German

    Abstract : A human rights violation involves unfulfilled human rights and a specific active causal relation of human agents to such non-fulfillment. This causal relation may be interactional; but it may also be institutional, as when agents collaborate in designing and imposing institutional arrangements that foreseeably and avoidably cause human rights to be unfulfilled. Readily available evidence suggests that (a) basic social and economic human rights remain unfulfilled for around half the world’s population and (b) the design of supranational institutional arrangement plays a major role in explaining why the poorer half of humanity is suffering a rapid decline in its share (now below three percent) of global household income. A strong case can be made, then, that people like myself – well-to-do citizens of influential states – collaboratively violate the human rights of the global poor on a massive scale. That most of us find this conclusion obviously mistaken does not discredit it because they have not investigated the institutional causes of the non-fulfillment of human rights nor relevant institutional reform possibilities.

“ Allowing the Poor to Share the Earth ” in Journal of Moral Philosophy 8/3 (2011), 335–352.

    Abstract : Two of the greatest challenges facing humanity are environmental degradation and the persistence of poverty. Both can be met by instituting a Global Resources Dividend (GRD) that would slow pollution and natural-resource depletion while raising funds for averting poverty worldwide. Unlike Hillel Steiner’s Global Fund, which is presented as a fully just regime governing the use of planetary resources, the GRD is meant as merely a modest but realistic step toward justice. Paula Casal has set forth various ways in which this step might be improved upon. Solid counter-arguments can be given to her criticisms and suggestions. But to specify the best (effective and realizable) design of an appropriate global institutional mechanism with some confidence, economists, political scientists, jurists, environmental scientists, and activists would need to be drawn in to help think through the immense empirical and political complexities posed by the urgent task.

“ Unfair Share ” in RSA Journal (Spring 2011), 10–13; reprinted in Making It , Issue 7: Governing a globalized world ” August 2011, 30–33.

“Human Rights and Global Wrongs” in Reflections — A Magazine of Theological and Ethical Inquiry (Fall 2010), 44–46.

“Keynote Address: Poverty, Climate Change, and Overpopulation” in Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 38 (2010), 525–542.

“ How Not to Count the Poor ,” authored with Sanjay Reddy, in Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal and Joseph Stiglitz, eds.: Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), 42–85.   German

    Abstract : The estimates of the extent, distribution and trend of global income poverty provided in the World Bank’s World Development Report s for 1990 and 2000/01 are neither meaningful nor reliable. The Bank uses an arbitrary international poverty line unrelated to any clear conception of what poverty is. It employs a misleading and inaccurate measure of purchasing power “equivalence” that vitiates international and intertemporal comparisons of income poverty. It extrapolates incorrectly from limited data and thereby creates an appearance of precision that masks the high probable error of its estimates. The systematic distortion introduced by these three flaws likely leads to a large understatement of the extent of global income poverty and to an incorrect inference that it has declined. A new methodology of global poverty assessment is feasible and necessary.

“How Many Poor People Should There Be? A Rejoinder to Ravallion” in Sudhir Anand, Paul Segal and Joseph Stiglitz, eds.: Debates on the Measurement of Global Poverty (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), 102–114.

“The Role of International Law in Reproducing Massive Poverty” in Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas, eds.: The Philosophy of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), 417–435.

“World Poverty” in John Skorupski, ed.: Routledge Companion to Ethics (London: Routledge 2010), 796–807.

“Baselines for Determining Harm” in Joel Rosenthal and Christian Barry, eds.: Ethics and International Affairs (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press 2009), 329–34.

“Poverty” in Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability (Vol. 1): The Spirit of Sustainability (Great Barrington MA: Berkshire Publishing Group 2009), 317–320.

“Concluding Remarks” in Jeremy Farrall and Kim Rubenstein, eds.: Sanctions, Accountability, and Governance in a Globalised World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009), 407–417.

“Developing Morally Plausible Indices of Poverty and Gender Equity: A Research Program” in Alison Jaggar, ed.: Global Gender Justice , special issue of Philosophical Topics 37/2 (2009), 199–221; integrated into Politics as Usual as chapter 4 .  German   Spanish   French

“How World Poverty is Measured and Tracked” in Rights and Development Bulletin 1/10 (2008), 5–13; reprinted in  Absolute Poverty and Global Justice as chapter 3.

    Abstract : In 2015, the world will celebrate the achievement of the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG-1): to halve world poverty by 2015. But this foreseeable achievement crucially depends on how poverty is being measured and tracked. It depends on choosing an extremely low international poverty line: people are counted as poor only if the cost in local currency of their entire annual consumption has less purchasing power than $456 had in the US in 2005. By setting the international poverty line at twice this level, one would turn a 23% decline in the number of poor during 1990–2005 into a 2% increase. The achievement of MDG-1 also crucially depends on two reinterpretations of what it means to halve poverty by 2015. After promising to halve the number of poor people, then the proportion of poor in world population, the world’s governments have now settled on halving the proportion of poor among the (faster-growing) population of the developing countries. They have also back-dated the beginning of the MDG period to 1990 (with the result that MDG-1 was fully achieved in the world’s most populous region one full year before this goal had even been adopted!). These two revisions raise the number of those whose extreme poverty in 2015 will be deemed morally acceptable from 836 million to 1327 million — and they ensure that a 21% reduction in the number of poor during 2000–2015 suffices for success. The achievement of MDG-1 will owe much more to the clever shifting of goalposts than to reductions in world poverty.

“ Growth and Inequality: Understanding Recent Trends and Political Choices ” in Dissent 55/1 (Winter 2008), 66–75; thoroughly updated reprint “Growth is Good! — but What Growth?” in Ayelet Banai, Miriam Ronzoni, and Christian Schemmel, eds.: Social Justice, Global Dynamics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (London: Routledge 2011), 77–94; updated version in Politics as Usual , chapter 5 .  German   Italian   Chinese   Spanish

“Cosmopolitanism” in Robert Goodin, Philip Pettit, and Thomas Pogge, eds.: A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy , second edition (Oxford: Blackwell 2007), 312–331.  Chinese   Spanish

“Severe Poverty as a Human Rights Violation” in Thomas Pogge, ed.: Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, and Paris: UNESCO 2007), 11–53; reprinted in Ronald Labonte, Katia Mohindra, Ted Schrecker and Kirsten Stoebenau: Global Health , volume 4 Global Health Ethics, Public Policy and Challenges for the Future (London: Sage 2011).  Italian   Spanish

“Reframing Global Economic Security and Justice” in David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds.: Globalization Theory: Approaches and Controversies (Cambridge: Polity Press 2007), 207–224.

“Moral Priorities for International Human Rights NGOs” in Daniel A. Bell and Jean-Marc Coicaud, eds.: Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007), 218–256; abbreviated and updated version “How International NGOs Should Act” in  Giving Well as chapter 3.  Video   Spanish

    Abstract : For a world in which the resources of INGOs fall short dramatically of the needs they seek to meet, I propose and critically discuss a principle for setting priorities: Other things being equal, an INGO should govern its decision making about candidate projects by such rules and procedures as are expected to maximize its long-run cost effectiveness, defined as the expected aggregate moral value of the projects it undertakes divided by the expected aggregate cost of these projects. Here aggregate moral value, or harm protection, is the sum of the moral values of the harm reductions (and increases) these projects bring about for the individual persons they affect.

“Respect and Disagreement: A Response to Joseph Carens” in Daniel A. Bell and Jean-Marc Coicaud, eds.: Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights Nongovernmental Organizations (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007), 273–278.

“ Unknown: Extent, Distribution and Trend of Global Income Poverty ” (Thomas Pogge and Sanjay Reddy) in Economic and Political Weekly 41/22 (June 3–9, 2006), 2241–2247; reprinted in Bharti Thakar, ed.: Global Poverty: Eradication Strategies (Hyderabad: ICFAI University Press 2007), 25–45.  Catalan   Spanish

“ Moralizing Humanitarian Intervention: Why Jurying Fails and How Law Can Work ” in Terry Nardin and Melissa Williams, eds.: Humanitarian Intervention, NOMOS volume 47 (New York: New York University Press 2005), 158–187; integrated into Politics as Usual as chapter 8 .  Spanish

    Abstract : A critique of the proposal by Kofi Annan and Thomas Franck for relaxing the UN Charter constraints on humanitarian intervention.

“ Recognized and Violated by International Law: The Human Rights of the Global Poor ” in Leiden Journal of International Law 18/4 (2005), 717–745; reprinted with revisions in Berma Klein Goldewijk, ed.: Religion, International Relations and Development Cooperation (Wageningen NL: Wageningen Academic Publishers 2007), 79–112; integrated into Politics as Usual as chapter 2 .  Portuguese   Spanish   French   German   Czech   Chinese

    Abstract : Various human rights are widely recognized in codified and customary international law. These human rights promise all human beings protection against specific severe harms that might be inflicted on them domestically or by foreigners. Yet, international law also establishes and maintains institutional structures that greatly contribute to these human rights not being fulfilled: Fundamental components of international law systematically obstruct the aspirations of poor populations for democratic self-government, civil rights, and minimal economic sufficiency. And central international organizations, like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank, are designed so that they systematically contribute to the persistence of severe poverty. On the most plausible construal of the duties that human rights impose, those contributing to the design or imposition of such institutional structures are violating the human rights of the global poor.

“ World Poverty and Human Rights ” in Ethics and International Affairs 19/1 (2005), 1–7; reprinted in Judith Boss, ed.: Analyzing Moral Issues , 4th edition, (Columbus OH: McGraw-Hill 2007); reprinted in Joel Rosenthal and Christian Barry, eds.: Ethics and International Affairs (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press 2009), 307–15; reprinted with revisions in Matt Zwolinski, ed.: Arguing about Political Philosophy (New York: Routledge 2009), 558–564; reprinted in Steven Cahn and Robert Talisse, eds.: Political Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century (Boulder: Westview Press 2012), 253–260.

    Abstract : Introducing the symposium on my book (of the same title), I sketch its three main (parallel) lines of argument: The present radical inequality of life chances is unjust in virtue of its actual history, in virtue of depriving the global poor of a fair share in the benefits from the use of planetary resources, and in virtue of its being sustained by a global institutional order that foreseeably produces avoidable massive human rights deficits. All three arguments reach the conclusion that, by defending the present radically unequal distribution, the affluent countries and their citizens are harming the global poor. This conclusion differs from the usual presentations of world poverty according to which its causes are local and our duties in regard to it are positive ones of charity, aid, and assistance.

“ Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties ” in Ethics and International Affairs 19/1 (2005), 55–83.

    Abstract : Responding to five critics, I address the objections each of them has made. Against Mathias Risse, I show that economic progress over the last two centuries cannot support his view that the present global order is imperfectly developed rather than unjust and that its coercive imposition is not a harm done to the global poor. Against Alan Patten, I show that my view escapes the dilemma he poses by invoking more than a minimalist procedural conception of justice and yet less than a maximalist substantive one that would involve me in stretching the meaning of “harm” beyond recognition. In response to Rowan Cruft, I clarify that I do not mean to deny (or assert) that human rights entail positive duties, that I focus however on human-rights-imposed negative duties, and that such negative duties may trigger positive obligations (e.g., to help reform unjust social institutions and to protect their victims). Against Norbert Anwander, I defend my claim that there is a negative duty not to take advantage of injustice which is distinct from, and not reducible to, the negative duty not to contribute to injustice. And in response to Debra Satz I correct some common misunderstandings and then elaborate who should count as a participant in the design or imposition of unjust social institutions and what such individuals should reasonably demand of themselves.

“ The First UN Millennium Development Goal: A Cause for Celebration? ” in Journal of Human Development 5/3 (2004), 377–397, and in Real World Justice , 317–338 (ch.18); updated version in Politics as Usual , chapter 3 .  Spanish   German

    Abstract : The first and most prominent UN Millennium Development Goal has been widely celebrated. Yet, four reflections should give us pause. Though retaining the idea of “halving extreme poverty by 2015,” MDG-1 in fact sets a much less ambitious target than had been agreed to at the 1996 World Food Summit in Rome: that the number of poor should be reduced by 19 (rather than 50) percent, from 1094 to 883.5 million. Tracking the $1/day poverty headcount, the World Bank uses a highly unreliable method and may thus be painting far too rosy a picture of the evolution of extreme poverty. Shrinking the problem of extreme poverty, which now causes some 18 million deaths annually, by 19 percent over 15 years is grotesquely under ambitious in view of resources available and the magnitude of the catastrophe. Finally, this go-slow approach is rendered even more appalling by the contribution made to the persistence of severe poverty by the affluent countries and the global economic order they impose. An apparently generous gesture toward the global poor helps conceal the largest crime against humanity ever committed. (See Politics as Usual for updated data.)

“‘Assisting’ the Global Poor” in Deen K. Chatterjee, ed.: The Ethics of Assistance: Morality and the Distant Needy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004), 260–288; also in Ioanna Kuçuradi, ed.: The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 13: Philosophy Facing World Problems (Ankara: Philosophical Society of Turkey 2007), 189–215; reprinted in Tamar Szabo Gendler, Susanna Siegel, and Steven M. Cahn, eds.: The Elements of Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press 2008), 161–173; in Global Ethics: Seminal Essays ; in Walter Carlsnaes and Stefano Guzzini, eds.: Foreign Policy Analysis (London: SAGE Publications 2011); in Sebastiano Maffettone and Aakash Singh Rathore, eds.: Global Justice: Critical Perspectives (New Delhi: Routledge, 2012), 32–57; and in Christian Barry and Holly Lawford-Smith, eds.: Global Justice , The Library of Essays on Justice, Volume 2 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), 67–95.  French   German   Chinese   Spanish   Dutch

    Abstract : We citizens of the affluent countries tend to discuss our obligations toward the distant needy in terms of donations and transfers, assistance and redistribution: “How much of our wealth, if any, should we give away to the hungry abroad?” This way of conceiving the problem is a serious moral error, and a very costly one for the global poor. It depends on the false belief — widespread in the rich countries — that the causes of the persistence of severe poverty are wholly indigenous to the countries in which it occurs. There are indeed national and local factors that contribute to persistent poverty in developing countries. But global institutional rules also play an important role in its reproduction, in part by sustaining the national and local factors that affluent Westerners most like to blame for the problem. Since these rules are shaped by our governments, in our name, we bear moral responsibility not merely by assisting the distant poor too little, but also, and more significantly, by harming them too much.

“What is Global Justice?” (Chinese) in World Philosophy (March 2004); English version in Real World Justice , 2–11; updated version in Politics as Usual , chapter 1 .  Spanish

    Abstract : The increasingly widespread expression “global justice” marks an important shift in the structure of our moral discourse. Traditionally, international relations were seen as sharply distinct from the domain of domestic justice. The former focused on interactions among states, while the latter evaluated the design of a national institutional order in light of its effects on its individual participants. Such institutional moral analysis is and should now be applied to supranational institutional arrangements which are becoming ever more pervasive and important for the life prospects of individuals. The traditional lens presents fair agreements among (internally just or unjust) sovereign states. The new lens shows a deeply unjust global institutional order that enriches elites in both rich and poor countries while perpetuating the oppression and impoverishment of a majority of the human population.

“ Cosmopolitanism: a defence ” ( a critique by David Miller) in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5:3 (Autumn 2003), 86–91.

“Human Rights and Human Responsibilities” in Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff, eds.: Global Justice and Transnational Politics (Cambridge MA: MIT Press 2002), 151–195; reprinted with revisions in Andrew Kuper, ed.: Global Responsibilities: Who Must Deliver on Human Rights? (London: Routledge 2005), 3–35.  Spanish

    Abstract : Large segments of humankind are so poor that their social and economic and often their civil and political human rights remain unfulfilled. Who bears what responsibilities toward solving this problem? A recently proposed ‘Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities’ provides no answers. Against competing interpretations of the responsibilities entailed by the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, §28 of this Declaration suggests that human rights give those subjected to an institutional order moral claims against those who impose it. This suggestion implies, plausibly, that the more powerful states imposing the international order must shape it so that (insofar as is reasonably possible) all persons subjected to it have secure access to the objects of their human rights. If those states lived up to this responsibility, much of the current vast underfulfillment of human rights would be avoided.

“ How Not to Count the Poor! — A Reply to Ravallion ,” authored with Sanjay Reddy, Initiative for Policy Dialogue , August 15, 2002.

“ Globale Verteilungsgerechtigkeit ” 2002.

“Economic Justice, National and Global” (Chinese) in Dushu 2002:1, and in Taishe 44; English text in Nicholas Bunnin, Qiu Renzong and Jiang Yi, eds.: Political Philosophy (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press 2010).

“Preempting Humanitarian Interventions” in Ian Carter and Mario Ricciardi, eds.: Freedom, Power and Political Morality: Essays for Felix Oppenheim (London: Palgrave 2001), 153–170; reprinted in Aleksandar Jokic, ed.: Humanitarian Intervention: Moral and Philosophical Issues (Peterborough: Broadview Press 2003), 93–108.

    Abstract : This essay discusses four kinds of strategies for reducing the occasions on which humanitarian interventions look imperative and highlights particular reforms of our global order that would make it more encouraging of good government.

“ Priorities of Global Justice ” in Metaphilosophy 32/1–2 (January 2001), 6–24, and in Thomas Pogge, ed.: Global Justice (Oxford: Blackwell 2001), 6–23; reprinted in David A. Hollinger, ed.: The American Intellectual Tradition Volume II: 1865 to the Present Seventh Edition (New York: Oxford University Press 2015); abbreviated and updated reprint in David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds.: The Global Transformations Reader , 2nd edition (Cambridge: Polity Press 2003), 548–558; further updated in Tom L. Beauchamp, Norman E. Bowie, and Denis G. Arnold, eds.: Ethical Theory and Business , 8th edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 2007), 712–721.  Chinese   Dutch

    Abstract : One third of all human deaths are due to poverty-related causes, to malnutrition and to diseases that can be prevented or cured cheaply. Yet, our politicians, academics, and mass media show little concern for how such poverty might be reduced. They are more interested in possible military interventions to stop human rights violations in developing countries, even though such interventions produce smaller benefits (if any) at greater cost. This Western priority may be rooted in self-interest. But it engenders, and is sustained by, a deeply flawed moral presentation of global economic cooperation. The new global economic order imposed by the wealthy and powerful states aggravates global inequality and reproduces severe poverty on a massive scale. On any plausible understanding of our moral values, the eradication of such poverty is our foremost responsibility.

“Migration and Poverty” in Veit M. Bader, ed.: Citizenship and Exclusion (Houndmills: Macmillan 1997), 12–27; reprinted in Robert Goodin and Philip Pettit, eds.: Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell 2005), 710–720.  Revised & Updated version in Spanish   German   Spanish

    Abstract : This essay argues that political efforts toward eradicating poverty in the developing countries should take precedence over political efforts to get more poor and oppressed persons admitted into our affluent societies. Efforts of both kinds are directed at morally worthy goals. But the former efforts are likely to be far more effective than the latter.

“ Liberalism and Global Justice: Hoffmann and Nardin on Morality in International Affairs ” in Philosophy and Public Affairs 15/1 (Winter 1986), 67–81.

    Abstract : The essay argues for a conception of global justice that (a) is “liberal” in orientation and (b) focuses on “social institutions” (not on conduct and policies within some prevailing global regime). The two parts of my thesis are explained and defended against the background of two recent books. Terry Nardin’s Law, Morality and the Relations of States comes into conflict with the moral commitments of liberalism, while Stanley Hoffmann’s Duties Beyond Borders attacks the Rawlsian emphasis on social institutions.

Advancing social justice

Social justice at the centre of international, national and regional policy agendas.

Momentum is growing for the concept that advancing social justice should be the central aim guiding all national and international policies. This idea has gained traction among proponents who argue it enables societies and economies to function more cohesively when social justice is prioritized.

Supporters contend that promoting decent work and a fair globalization agenda focused on fundamental rights , employment opportunities, social protections, and constructive social dialogue between governments, employers, and workers is key to putting social justice at the core.

However, advocates point out the persisting grave injustices, widespread labor insecurity, high inequality, and unraveling social contracts exacerbated by global crises. These harsh realities threaten progress made on social issues. Reinforcing institutions and policies that truly advance social justice is seen as an urgent priority.

Proposals to advance social justice include improving inclusive and effective governance of work, ensuring employment opportunities and lifelong learning, reforming institutions for fairer labor market outcomes, and extending social protections across peoples' lifetimes. An integrated approach across all these areas is touted.

Support is growing for creating a wide-reaching Global Coalition for Social Justice. The proposed coalition would aim to bolster multilateral cooperation and aligned policies focused on furthering social justice aims. It could highlight impactful initiatives that have successfully advanced social justice worldwide. The coalition would also empower constructive national social dialogues to identify and address social justice gaps. Overall, there are calls urging coordinated efforts to make advancing social justice a top policy priority across all levels.

The International Labour Organization ( ILO ) unanimously adopted the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization on 10 June 2008. This is the third major statement of principles and policies adopted by the International Labour Conference since the ILO’s Constitution of 1919. It builds on the Philadelphia Declaration of 1944 and the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998 . The 2008 Declaration expresses the contemporary vision of the ILO’s mandate in the era of globalization.

This landmark Declaration is a powerful reaffirmation of ILO values. It is the outcome of tripartite consultations that started in the wake of the Report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization . By adopting this text, the representatives of governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations from 182 member States emphasize the key role of our tripartite Organization in helping to achieve progress and social justice in the context of globalization. Together, they commit to enhance the ILO’s capacity to advance these goals, through the Decent Work Agenda . The Declaration institutionalizes the Decent Work concept developed by the ILO since 1999, placing it at the core of the Organization’s policies to reach its constitutional objectives.

The Declaration comes at a crucial political moment, reflecting the wide consensus on the need for a strong social dimension to globalization in achieving improved and fair outcomes for all. It constitutes a compass for the promotion of a fair globalization based on decent work, as well as a practical tool to accelerate progress in the implementation of the Decent Work Agenda at the country level. It also reflects a productive outlook by highlighting the importance of sustainable enterprises in creating greater employment and income opportunities for all.

The General Assembly recognizes that social development and social justice are indispensable for the achievement and maintenance of peace and security within and among nations and that, in turn, social development and social justice cannot be attained in the absence of peace and security, or in the absence of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It further recognizes that globalization and interdependence are opening new opportunities through trade, investment and capital flows and advances in technology, including information technology, for the growth of the world economy and the development and improvement of living standards around the world, while at the same time there remain serious challenges, including serious financial crises, insecurity , poverty , exclusion and inequality within and among societies, and considerable obstacles to further integration and full participation in the global economy for developing countries, as well as some countries with economies in transition.

On 26 November 2007, the General Assembly declared that, starting from the sixty-third session of the General Assembly , 20 February will be celebrated annually as the World Day of Social Justice.

2024 Commemorative Events

20 February 2024, 3 - 16 (GMT-5) New York, USA virtual streaming live here

World Day of Social Justice reminds us each year of the need to build fairer, more equitable societies. The International Labour Organization (ILO) marks the occasion this year with a series of six events held in major cities around the globe. The events bring together high-level speakers from across the world of work to discuss how to put social justice at the centre of international, national and regional policy agendas.

Event details

More about the event

Participate

Share on social media  #SocialJusticeDay

ILO Director-General report to the International Labour Conference - 2024

The report of the ILO Director-General to the International Labour Conference focuses on the need for greater social justice globally and the means to achieve it, and highlights the opportunities that exist, both nationally and internationally, for furthering the ILO’s human-centred and rights-based approach. In the "Rev." version of 02 June, footnote 18 was corrected.

• Executive Summary
• Overarching Key Messages
• Chapter Key Messages
• Full Report

Key documents and publications

• International Labour Organization Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (A/RES/63/199)
• World Day of Social Justice (A/RES/62/10)
• World Employment and Social Outlook 202 4
• Social Justice in an Open World:The Role of the United Nations

• Social Inclusion (DESA)
• Work, peace and resilience
• Forced labour, human trafficking and slavery
• The need for social justice
• The ILO and the Quest for Social Justice (video)
• 90 years working for social justice
• Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization
• World Summit for Social Development (1995)

Why do we mark International Days?

International days and weeks are occasions to educate the public on issues of concern, to mobilize political will and resources to address global problems, and to celebrate and reinforce achievements of humanity. The existence of international days predates the establishment of the United Nations, but the UN has embraced them as a powerful advocacy tool. We also mark other UN observances .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Social Justice Essay | Essay on Social Justice for Students and Children in English

February 14, 2024 by Prasanna

Social Justice Essay: A discussion of social justice should start with a definition of the term. It is said that this task can be difficult. If you do a Google search about social justice, the primary outcome offers a meaning of social justice.

It would define social justice as the reasonable and appropriate organization of laws adjusting to the customary law that all people, independent of ethnic birthplace, gender assets, race, religion, and so forth, are to be dealt with similarly and without bias. Social justice is an idea of a general public where each individual is dealt with fairly, without segregation dependent on budgetary status, race, gender, nationality, and so forth.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Social Justice for Students and Kids in English

We provide students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on Social Justice for reference.

Long Essay on Social Justice 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Social Justice is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Social justice is an idea of reasonable or adjusted relations between the individual and society as estimated by the conveyance of abundance that incorporates individual action and social advantage openings. In Western as well as in more established Asian societies, the idea of social justice has regularly alluded to the way toward guaranteeing that people satisfy their cultural jobs and get what was their due from society.

Social justice isn’t an “us versus them” mindset; rather, it is a “we are in it together” attitude where the amazing and weak work together.

A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli coined the term first in the 1780s and spread during the revolutions of 1848. In the late industrial revolution, innovative American legal scholars started to use the term more, especially Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound. The various ideas of social justice, as examined in the old Western way of thinking, were normally focused upon the community. Plato believed that rights existed only between free people. During the middle Ages, some religious scholars discussion of justice in various ways,

After the Renaissance and Reformation, the advanced idea of social justice, as creating human potential, started to arise through crafted by a progression of creators.

Today, the idea of social justice frequently alludes to basic liberties, revolved around improving the lives of gatherings minimized dependent on race, identity, ethnicity, gender, sexual direction, age, religion and handicap. The five principles of social justice are Equity, Access, Diversity, Participation, Human Rights. Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

For example, income inequality is one significant issue that is encompassed within the umbrella of social justice. The data shows that income inequality has been increasing for the past thirty years. Social justice can comprehend many issues, but ultimately, it is a crucial component of healing many of the deep divisions that the world is experiencing. While some people may criticize the idea of social justice or the need for swift action to solve some serious economic and racial issues, a proactive approach on social justice, like voting or protesting will lead to a better, brighter country.

While several global groups are looking to provide equal rights to all, racial discrimination is nonetheless a hot topic. There are laws in the area around the world, but many incidents occur to illustrate that racial discrimination has not been irradiated. Discrimination comes in all shapes. The number of birthdays that you have accrued is another example.

Ageism, where the aged are discriminated against, creates negative stereotypes of the aged being weak, feeble, or unable to change. Beyond discrimination based on age, other hot topics are gender and sexuality. In recent years, gender has morphed into a complicated topic that goes beyond the binary designations of male and female.

Social justice allocates the rights and duties in the institutions of our society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. It helps us work toward celebrating diversity in our communities and country.

Short Essay on Social Justice 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Social Justice is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Social justice is a hypothesis of nondiscriminatory and unbiased relations between an individual and society. Observable but unspoken terms determine it for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges.

Luigi Taparelli coined the term first in the 1780s and spread during the revolutions of 1848. Socrates is credited with developing the idea of a social contract. After the Renaissance and Reformation, the advanced idea of social justice, as creating human potential, started to arise through crafted by a progression of creators.

With the modern era, the face of social justice has changed. While rallies and marches are still prevalent, the Internet is also used to bring social justice issues to light. This can be seen through movements like #blacklivesmatter and the #metoo movement against sexual harassment. These campaigns work to expand issues into bigger movements that rally activists together. Other than that voting, campaigning is the basic approaches of social justice.

10 Lines on Social Justice in English

• Luigi Taparelli coined the term first in 1780s.
• The term social justice is spread during the revolutions of 1848.
• The #metoo movement had an impact all over the world.
• Social justice can organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community.
• Income inequality is one of the biggest social problems now.
• Social justice helps us work toward celebrating diversity in our communities and country.
• One of the most useful thing in social justice is the vote.
• Twenty-three nations around the world currently allow same-sex marriage through social justice.
• Nepal is one of at least five countries where your gender can now appear as “other” on official statements.
• 20th February is the world day of social justice.

FAQ’s on Social Justice Essay

Question 1. What is an example of social justice?

Answer:  The #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements are two examples of social justice in action in the United States,

Question 2. What are now important five social problems?

Answer: Poverty, Drug abuse, Prostitution, Racial discrimination are examples of social problems.

Question 3.  Is social justice good?

Answer: Social justice can organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community.

Question 4. To what extent does power or the lack of power affect individuals?

Answer: power or the lack of power can affect individuals in a bad way and a good way. For example, power can make you corrupted, and lack of power can make you ambitious.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Essay on Social Justice

Cultural tolerance is essential in the peaceful existence of diverse groups within the same social space. One of the critical issues that have been mentioned is social justice. According to Romero (2020), social justice is a concept that advocates for the fair treatment of all individuals concerning access to resources and opportunities. Current approaches in social justice recognize the existence of diverse groups regarding issues such as religion, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, among others. As a result, there has been increased lobbying to ensure that persons that belong to minority groups are not discriminated against because of their unique tendencies. Social justice sentiments began with the issue of race and gender. In recent years, advocacy groups have fought for the rights of people who face discrimination due to their sexual orientation. There is a need for individual reflection on social justice issues to foster deep understanding and that everyone in the society takes an active role in ensuring fairness for all persons.

Understanding Social Justice

To understand social justice, there is a need to accept that society is culturally diverse. Society justice is a crucial element in normative ethics because it prevents the discrimination of a person or a group of people based on cultural aspects such as ethnicity, gender, race, or sexual orientation. Tribe and Bell (2018) explain that social justice requires that people live with sensitivity and understanding towards one another. There are fundamental rights that should be accorded to all human beings. For instance, the right to be treated with dignity and the right to life. Social justice exists in an environment where people can enjoy their freedom free from any form of discrimination merely because they are culturally different. However, Tribe and Bell (2018) also explain that social justice is more complex, and most definitions often cover only some of its aspects. For instance, freedom does not exist in a vacuum, and there is a need to understand that there are limitations. Social justice advocates for people to enjoy their rights without infringing on other people’s freedom. The true face of social justice promotes peace and harmony in society and advocates for an environment where all persons enjoy a genuine sense of belonging.

Identifying Social Justice

There are specific norms and tendencies in society that provide evidence for the existence of social justice. The philosophy does not necessarily imply a utopian society. Social justice is a process that begins with the acknowledgment that human beings are diverse (Noltemeyer & Grapin, 2021). Most communities in the contemporary world cannot claim to possess social justice because discrimination exists in varying degrees, even though there is the consciousness that there is a need to treat all persons fairly. Even countries in the first world demonstrate favoritism regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation. A perfect example is gender discrimination, evident despite decades of advocacies. Women are yet to achieve equality due to institutions and systems that favor men. The number of women leaders, even in the developed world, is wanting. However, there is a need to appreciate that numerous discourses address the issue of social justice. Multiple studies have attempted to understand and demystify cultural diversity. Almost all findings indicate that variety has little to do with competency (Noltemeyer & Grapin, 2021). For example, the traditional assumption that men make better leaders has been refuted in places where women have been given leadership opportunities. Social justice is a process rather than an end because minority cultural groups are constantly getting bold to demand social space. An essential aspect of consideration is the consciousness of the existence of diversity and the willingness of everyone in society to take responsibility for promoting fairness.

Promoting Social Justice

Promoting social justice is a complex task because issues of fairness, injustice, and discrimination are not always black and white. Tribe and Bell (2018) explain that there is a need to find a harmonious balance between freedom and social equality. There are instances where when expressing freedom and an individual might compromise social equality. For example, a person might use the concept of freedom of expression to speak ill about a group of culturally different people. Emotional intelligence demands that people are sensitive to the feelings of others when making remarks about diversity. In the contemporary world, people living in diverse societies often encounter circumstances where a person or a group of people make negative remarks towards individuals of difference, race, religion, ability level, or sexual orientation. Understanding how to respond in such situations without unnecessarily creating tension is necessary. Practicing caution and tolerance is crucial because, in most instances, people make negative remarks in such cases as a result of ignorance rather than arrogance. Therefore, it is essential to understand why a person is making such remarks before rebuking them. There are instances where it is also prudent to walk away when there is the possibility that any response may worsen the conflict.

The last time I thought about race, gender, and ethnicity was during the recent protests and riots by Black Lives Matter advocacy group members. The issue was not just about African Americans but included white Americans and other races. Furthermore, the protests took a global perspective when the group heightened its online presence. The demonstrations prompted me to think about the centuries of racial discrimination and the atrocities delved against minority groups. In addition, I was disturbed about whether social justice is an attainable goal or merely a utopian dream.

Children and Families

Social justice debates have promoted recognizing vulnerable groups and crucial institutions requiring special attention. For instance, children are often given priority during difficult times such as natural calamities. Whereas adults can usually take care of themselves, children often suffer most during such disasters. As a result, they are always accorded special attention and priority. The family unit is considered the basis for every society. Therefore, it is always given privileges to keep members together, and children grow up in safe environments. However, children and families also experience unique challenges. Children often suffer from decisions made by their parents because, as minors, they cannot make severe choices concerning essential issues in life. Families also experience challenges due to emerging dynamics that do not favor the unit. For example, harsh economic conditions that require both parents to work deny children the chance to enjoy parental love. These conditions also place unnecessary pressure on parents, often affecting their mental health.

Social justice is an essential consideration for positive outcomes in society. A personal reflection on the matter is crucial to encourage understanding and ensure that individuals take responsibility for promoting fairness and justice. Promoting social justice is vital because it gives each person a role. When discussing the philosophy, there is a need to pay special attention to children and families. The discourses should not be limited to cultural issues such as gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Noltemeyer, A., & Grapin, S. L. (2021). Working together towards social justice, anti-racism, and equity: A joint commitment from school psychology international and journal of education and psychological consultation.  School Psychology International, 42 (1), 3-10. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034320977618

Romero, M. (2020). Sociology engaged in social justice.  American Sociological Review, 85 (1), 1-30. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419893677

Tribe, R., & Bell, D. (2018). Social justice, diversity, and leadership.  The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, 6 (1), 111-125. doi:10.5964/ejcop.v6i1.145

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Social psychology and world cup 2022, acquisition process ethical ramifications, ethical considerations in applied linguistics research in early childhood education in singapore, what is stress, punishment justifications: deterrence, legalization of marijuana will reduce the crime rate, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

On World Day of Social Justice, deeper dialogue across ‘real economy’ can drive progress, UN deputy chief says

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Social progress must move into the spotlight, flanked by policies that can drive meaningful change for millions of currently struggling people, the UN deputy chief said, marking the World Day of Social Justice on Monday.

“We must develop fairer, more balanced policies that generate the political buy-in to drive change,” Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed said in a video message. “What is also needed is a deeper social dialogue with actors across the real economy.”

International Labour Organization February 20, 2023

The day ’s theme focuses on strengthening global solidarity and re-building trust in government by overcoming barriers and unleashing opportunities for social justice. This approach comes from recommendations in Our Common Agenda , the UN’s plan for realizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 goals .

Overcoming multiple crises

The challenge is to overcome a toxic combination of mutually-reinforcing crises – inflation, debt, food and fuel price rises, geopolitical tensions and conflict, climate change – that are threatening to increase poverty, inequality and discrimination worldwide.

“All around the world people are struggling to recover from the socioeconomic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic , which has devastated lives and deepened inequalities,” she said.

Indeed, the coronavirus pandemic exacerbated global inequality, reversing declines over the past two decades. Women’s share of total incomes from work is less than 35 per cent , just a five per cent rise relative to 1990. At the same time, 214 million workers live in extreme poverty , on less than $1.90 a day, and the number of working poor is increasing in developing countries.

But, even before the pandemic began in 2020, she said, far too many were forced to eke out a living on less than $2.00 a day without rights and social protection and little prospects for a better future.

“When there is an imbalance between economic growth and social policy, political instability and unrest often follow,” she said. “That is why we need a closer convergence between the social and normative frameworks of the UN and the policies pursued by international financial institutions.”

Getting ‘back on track’

The 2030 Agenda , reinvigorated by Our Common Agenda, provides a blueprint to get “back on track and rescue” the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), she said.

“Let us always remember who the outcomes aim to serve; at the heart of social justice are people , especially our women and youth,” she said, anticipating fruitful, constructive discussions to meet the needs of millions.

Rampant inequalities

Poverty and inequalities within and among countries are on the rise in many parts of the world. Inequality remains very high , with annual gross domestic product per capita ranging from about $600 at purchasing power parity in the poorest country to more than $115,000 in the richest country. The top 10 per cent of the global population currently takes 52 per cent of global income , whereas the poorest half earns 6.5 per cent of it.

About 290 million youth globally are not in education, employment, or training , while two billion people work in the informal economy.  Unstable jobs and income , unhealthy and unsafe working conditions and no social protection led to a disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these workers that saw their earnings drop by 60 per cent in 2020.

Identifying key bottlenecks

To commemorate the day, Kyrgyzstan, the International Labour Organization ( ILO ) and partners held an event on the 2023 theme. Participants explored key bottlenecks and challenges to overcoming rising inequalities, opportunities in the green and digital economy to reduce them, and the actions needed by governments , the UN system, international financial institutions, and other stakeholders to boost investments for social justice .

José Antonio Ocampo ,Colombia’s Finance Minister, in a keynote address, set out several suggestions for tackling current “immense” global challenges that have a deep impact on social issues, including rising food prices, the climate crisis, and an economic downturn.

Social justice requires national-level fiscal action that centres on taxation, including wealth taxes, he said. Indeed, inequality in wealth far surpasses current income gaps, he said.

Touching on several areas of action, he said resources to guarantee ample tax revenues must be tailored to cover existing needs , alongside measures “ensuring subsidies of the poorest people”.

However, international financing has a critical role to play going forward, he said. Expanded multilateral bank efforts can help nations address climate challenges, and current debt swap arrangements can be further broadened . Assisting countries facing natural disasters is another key area that calls for expansion, he said.

Call for global coalition

Experts at an ILO event outlined further ways to bolster progress, with experts weighing in with innovative suggestions.

ILO’s Director-General Gilbert F Houngbo explained why a greater emphasis on social justice is essential for a sustainable recovery in a podcast released on Monday.

“Socially speaking, if we do not cultivate a better social justice, you will end up with more social unrest,” he said.

To ensure that the necessary measures and actions are integrated throughout all levels of policy making, he also underscored the need for a global coalition for social justice.

“Imagine, if in the whole world, we can bring the discourse on social justice at the same level as the economic and the environment,” he said. “That, for me, will be big achievement, because right now, it's not.”

• UN International Days