December 1, 2024
HomeStudents CornerLegal ArticlesCONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF JUSTICE IN A GLOBALISED WORLD: GLOBAL JUSTICE

CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF JUSTICE IN A GLOBALISED WORLD: GLOBAL JUSTICE

By  Legal Articles  0 Comments

Author: 1. Saumya Kashyap

2. Anshika Chandra

1.    Introduction

Defining justice can be seen a simple task current state of nature. Justice can be defined in the three spectra: in terms of ethics, in the terms of political philosophy and in the terms of legal; in which the justice is seen in true sense. The most relative definition of the justice came from the “Institute of Justinian”, the codification of roman law, “the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due”

This one-line is cannot be seen as the absolute definition of the justice. But this abstract line is capable to define the justice in all three terms. Justice is the phenomenon of being just which can be classified as righteousness, moral rightness or equitableness. For understanding better, the John Rawl’s theory of justice must be referred. He talks about the maintenance of the two principles:

  1. Firstly, he advocates the similar liberty and extensive equal right for all.
  2. Social and economic inequalities should be structured in a way that (a) they provide the most significant advantage to those who are least privileged, and (b) are linked to roles and positions that are accessible to everyone under conditions of fair and equal opportunity.

The social contract theory, as developed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, focuses primarily on how to structure the institutions of a society. This perspective, often referred to as ‘transcendental institutionalism,’ has two key characteristics. First, it centres on the idea of achieving perfect justice, rather than making comparisons between different levels of justice and injustice. Second, in its pursuit of this ideal, transcendental institutionalism emphasizes designing the right institutions rather than focusing on the actual societies that would arise from them.

More simply, Rawls’s two principles of justice applicability in the contemporary world are significant. Where the first principle lays down the rule of law and the right to equality, the second mentions the right to opportunities. However, the theory of utilitarianism and the social contract doesn’t fit well in this mould. The social contract theory starts from the surrendering of the rights to the state and the state has to protect the right to life, further, it focuses on the property right and lasts at the general will of the society as propounded by the Rosseau. The main difference that can be identified as the difference is the state of nature. As stated by Thomas Hobbs in his book “Leviathan”, the state of nature is barbaric, and the fundamental justice that the people needed was the right to life.

John Rawls and Amartya Sen continue contemplating justice in the framework of modern complexity. Plato realized that justice was a harmonious social arrangement wherein individuals serve in occupations in which they have some special talent for performing.

Aristotle elaborated further by dividing justice into distributive justice (just the distribution of goods) and corrective justice (redress for wrongs).

More recently, however, philosophical movements such as utilitarianism from Jeremy Bentham to John Stuart Mill suggest that justice is about maximizing happiness. In sharp contrast, John Rawls in his Theory of Justice delivered the concept of justice as fairness and introduced the idea of the “veil of ignorance” on the basis of designing principles of fairness for all as well as the least advantaged. On the other hand, libertarian theories, such as that of Robert Nozick, have individual rights as paramount and ensure that the state should not interfere with individual liberties as much as possible.

Amartya Sen’s capability approach from a vantage pragmatic view brings to the forefront what people really could do. This shift focusses from the relevance of the ‘institutions’ to real-world capacities and abilities of individuals. This paper attempts to unravel these theories in the context of a globalised world, particularly how the challenges of justice transcend national frontiers.

1.1.  Review of Literature:

Global justice has been the concern of many scholars and political thinkers, but they put forth the concept in different ways of understanding what justice is and how to implement it all around the world. John Rawls, in the book The Law of Peoples, argues for justice between different peoples in proving that wealthier nations have a responsibility in helping poorer ones to set up just institutions, but in his theory, he does not go so far as to claim that all riches have to be redistributed. More critical of the status quo, however, is Thomas Pogge, who insists that it actually maintains poverty and inequality, and who holds developed nations morally obligated to correct such imbalances. Perhaps most interesting in this regard is Amartya Sen’s capability approach, since it reverses the focus from an institutional perspective toward enabling individuals to achieve a lifestyle. Meanwhile, Martha Nussbaum and other cosmopolitan thinkers have been on the concept of global moral equality: all human beings should enjoy equal concern and respect irrelevant to nationality. These stances bring out into view the apparent inconsistency between ideals of global justice and specific practices at the level of international law and policy.

1.2.  Research Questions:

  • How do various philosophical theories define and interpret global justice in the globe?
  • What does international law do to further global justice principles?
  • How have the existing international institutions dealt with issues of disparities and fairness among nations?

1.3.  Research Objectives:

  • To Examine various globalization concepts discussed by prominent political minds and judges relating to global justice.
    • To analyse the role of international law in the promotion and implementation of global justice.
    • To investigation into whether international institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court are effective in addressing global injustices.
    • To find out how relevant global justice theories are to the current global challenges of economic inequality, degradation of the environment, and human rights violation.

1.4.  Research Methodology:

This study will use a doctrinal research methodology, which primarily relies on the analysis of the existing legal principles, philosophical theories, and international laws that relate to global justice. This research will focus on a deeply studied scholarly articles, legal cases, treaties and other declarations, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, books written by political philosophers: John Rawls, Amartya Sen, etc.

2.    Contemporary Interpretations of Global Justice

Global justice in the present day reflects the contemporary realities of a globalized world, wherein poverty, inequality, human rights violation, and environmental degradation easily cut across borders. It begins to get at the core of questions regarding ethical obligations from one to another and indeed between nations themselves-that question earlier concepts that defined justice as a border-bounded concept.

Global Distributive Justice

It focuses on achieving justice at the global level when assigning resources and opportunities both among nations and populations. Many inequalities exist not only within countries but between them as well. As the current world becomes more and more interconnected, the gap in the wealth, access to education and health care, as well as basic human rights, has made it necessary for a fairer use of resources at the global level.

One of the most dominant doctrines of global distributive justice acknowledges that in the real world, the benefits and costs of globalization are not shared equally between all nations. The richer countries enjoy a better quality of life, advanced technological facilities, better education, and medical facilities, whereas other unfortunate nations have to face poverty and scarce resources. The disparity between the countries thus raises ethical concerns on whether the wealthy nations should assist others who are underdeveloped.

Philosophers like John Rawls have a lot contributed to this dialogue. In his Theory of Justice, Rawls ushered in the world cross-worldly applicable principles of fairness arguing that societies be configured to Favor first those who are least favoured. His ideals provided for the discussion on how justice could be across borders and the concept of fair trade, debt relief, and international aid.

Besides, Amartya Sen’s capability approach weighs more on not only the distribution of resources but also to enhance the capabilities and possibilities available to people so that they all have an effective means of enabling their potential. It draws attention more toward issues of empowerment rather than focusing simply on the issue of resource allocation.

In short, global distributive justice advocates for a joint approach among the nations towards developing a more just and equitable world. It achieves this through such means as elimination of systemic inequalities, fair trade practices, and ensuring all human beings have access to all the necessities of life to live as dignified human beings. By inculcating a sense of shared responsibility, the global community aims at working towards a more just and equitable future.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice describes the equitable access to all means of the design, application, and practice of environmental laws, regulations, and policies that govern the mitigation of environmental harms and risks. It addresses the concern on issues relating to disproportionate environmental burdens borne by communities, predominantly poor communities, indigenous peoples, and areas characterized by rural geographic features through pollution, industrial waste, and degradation of the environment.

Environmental justice has, therefore, come a long way in the country of India, primarily through landmark cases and judicial interpretations that enlarged the scope of protection of environmental rights as part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has been the key to equity and justice through public interest litigations filed before it and its enlargement of constitutional provisions.

One of the landmark cases is “Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh”, also known as the “Dehradun Quarrying Case.” Here, the Supreme Court put an end to illegal limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills, causing havoc and scarring the environment and disrupting local populations. The balance between development and protection of environment had to be maintained, ruled the court.

The Supreme Court of India introduced the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle” into Indian environmental jurisprudence in the case of “Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India”. In this judgment, dealing with the pollution of tanneries in Tamil Nadu, the Court referred to a responsibility of industries not to cause environmental damage and to pay for the loss or injury suffered. In addition, the Court articulated the sustainable development principle for achieving a balance between environmental protection and industrial growth.

In “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India” for example-this has been called the Ganga Pollution Case-the Supreme Court of India directed the shuttering of polluting industries along river Ganga, reasoning that “the health of the river as also its people were more vital than the polluting industry.” The case focused on the critical point that environment degradation is a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, a principle repeatedly used in numerous environmental cases.

Indian environmental jurisprudence ensures that natural resources are preserved for future generations by adopting the principle of ‘intergenerational equity’, besides providing natural resources to the people for the present. In the ‘Narmada Bachao Andolan’ case decided in 2000, the Court considered the environmental and social dimensions of the Sardar Sarovar Dam.

Environmental justice in India finds its roots in the protection of fundamental rights, with the judiciary being proactive in ensuring that environmental protection is seen as an integral part of social justice. Progressive judgments and principles such as precautionary principle, polluter pays, and intergenerational equity lay a strong foundation for achieving a balance between environmental considerations and developmental needs, so that the vulnerable do not bear the brunt of environmental degradation.

Justice and Human Rights

Justice and human rights go hand in hand as concepts that reflect the ever-so-important moral and legal foundations upon which societies will strive to ensure fairness, equality, and dignity for all. Human rights are universal rights inherent in every person, while justice is a means through which these rights are protected and upheld. The global discourse of justice and human rights has been greatly contributed by world-renowned political thinkers, jurists, and particularly the Indian judiciary.

Philosophical Foundations: Among the founders of modern human rights are named political philosophers, including John Locke. They indicated the existence of some naturally inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property upon which governments have obligations to act. Locke’s arguments fundamentally shaped both the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in pressing the language of natural rights to the fore for human rights as a prerequisite to justice.

Another important philosopher is Immanuel Kant, who believed that human dignity must be respected, and that a human being must never be treated as a means to an end but always as an end in itself. Kant’s conception of “justice” falls within his doctrine on morality, where human rights form an integral constituent to the respect and dignity owed to each person. A contemporary political philosopher, John Rawls, formulated the theory of justice as fairness, an approach that postulates justice should give to all equal basic rights and ensure maximum good for the least advantaged members in a given society. According to Rawls’s Theory of Justice, he sets his focus on the premise that a just society should protect individual rights and create frameworks that ensure social and economic justice.

Human Rights in International Context: Human rights are protected internationally by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. According to the UDHR, justice is a part of human dignity, and everyone deserves certain rights; such include freedom of expression, the right to work, and the right not to be discriminated against. The paper has been written by many thinkers, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, who highlighted the need to establish an international norm of justice.

The rich tradition of Indian jurisprudence on justice and human rights: Indian judicial history is quite rich and has been devoted to providing protection for human rights particularly through the interpretation of the Indian Constitution. Article 21-the Right to Life and Personal Liberty- has been expansively interpreted to ensure a dignified life free from poverty, exploitation, and abuse.

An excellent example is “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India”, 1978. In this case, the Supreme Court broadened the radius of Article 21 by holding that the “right to life” is not only the right to live with life but also to live with dignity and, hence, will not let people die in vain. This case, thus, initiated the process of liberalizing human rights within Indian jurisprudence.

Then, it led to the Supreme Court of India establishing in “Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala”6, what is commonly referred to as the “basic structure doctrine,” whereby certain fundamental rights-notably the right to equality and justice-form part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by Parliament.

The case of “Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan” further reflected the proactive Indian judiciary in matters of its pursuit for justice, especially toward women’s rights. This case led to giving guidelines that were meant to curb sexual harassment in the workplace, thereby underlining the state’s responsibility to ensure access to justice on their part for vulnerable groups.

Global Thinkers and Indian Jurisprudence: Influence of Ronald Dworkin in Indian jurisprudence would be easily found whereby the rights of individuals are likely to manifest as “trumps” trumping over the calculating utilitarianism. Indian courts, in cases like “Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India”8which legalized homosexuality and made it no longer a criminal offense, have increasingly come to understand that justice compels the protection of personal liberties and human dignity consistent with what is emerging globally.

3.    Global Justice in International Law

Global justice in the international law sphere can be outlined as fairness, equality, and safeguarding human rights regardless of borders. It aims at providing protection for basic rights and just treatment without favouritism to any individual on the basis of their country of origin. International law happens to be one of the major tools towards the realization of global justice concerning the regulation of state relations, protection of human rights, and issues like trade, security, and environmental problems that have become transnational.

Another way through which the pursuit of global justice within international law can be traced back is through the creation of the United Nations in 1945. The UN Charter emphasizes the need to maintain international peace and security, to promote social progress and better order in the world, and to achieve human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, adopted in 1948, was another critical framework for establishing global justice. It gives an international document of rights that guarantees, irrespective of the nationality, everyone has a right to basic safeguards of life, liberty, and security. The ‘UDHR’ has inspired other treaties such as the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’ and ‘the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)’; human rights protections are only enhanced.

The more recent development in international law of global justice includes the Responsibility to Protect doctrine adopted by the UN in 2005, with its principle emphasizing that all states have a duty to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, and other very serious violations. If a state is unable or unwilling to do this, then the international community has a responsibility to intervene if necessary and, if possible, even militarily, to prevent atrocity crimes. Still, R2P is an evolving understanding that the international community must intervene when justice has been infringed.

Another important dimension that international law intersects with is economic justice. The laws of international trade are formulated by bodies like the World Trade Organization and are regulated by the law of international trade. The controversy remains that the latter is perceived to be skewed in Favor of the developed countries. Criticisms often highlight how free trade agreements benefit the richer nations unfairly, thus accentuating inequality worldwide. Proponents for fairer trade policies attack this from the vantage point of reforming the international economic order to conform more precisely to developed nations’ ideals of justice. Such theories as global distributive justice proposed by thinkers such as Amartya Sen and Thomas Pogge reflect the supposed aim: that the global economy should deal with the reduction in poverty and offer distribution more justly to the citizens of the world. International law can back efforts to build a fairer world through reform of international trade rules and investment treaties.

International law relates the concept of global justice to the rebalancing of inequalities and allowing the reasonable respect of human rights that could make the world attain fairness in both social and economic domains. All this being said, the journey toward global justice has been long and treacherous, yet because of the principles laid within international treaties and institutions, the world is moving forward to a far more equitable and just global order.

4.    Global Justice in Practice

“Global Justice in Practice” refers to the practice of ideas relating to fairness, equality, and rights at an international level- thus, addressing inequalities, conflicts, and also the discrepancies in the distribution of resource and opportunities across the globe. The efforts by the various foreign jurists, political thinkers, and legal frameworks have through them and the progressive and voluminous discourse and the current practice of global justice by different societies and global institutions as they attempt to envision a new global world order.

The principle of cosmopolitanism is the core of the arguments over global justice.

Some key thinkers provide the road map with ideas of cosmopolitanism whereby they assert that every individual belongs to the world community and hence deserves the same moral regard as each and every one of its citizens. According to cosmopolitans, national boundaries should not determine what morally is to be shared or utilized in terms of resources or rights. This view demands a global community responsibility to address issues such as global poverty, crimes against humanity, and environmental degradation, keeping in mind the way modern societies are not separable.

International Law and Global Justice:

From a legal point of view, international law makes many contributions to a pursuit for global justice.

Along these lines, international institutions such as the ICC, ‘the United Nations (UN)’, and ‘the World Trade Organization (WTO)’ are constructed to uphold international standards of justice, safeguard human rights, and regulate global economic relationships. Such is the case with ‘the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)’, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which constitutes one of the cornerstones of global justice, declaring a universal set of entitlements shared among all human beings, regardless of their nationality, race, or religion.

Global Jurisprudence and Human Rights:

An important contribution to global justice in practice is the development of international human rights jurisprudence.

The crux of Eleanor Roosevelt’s argument in the drafting of the UDHR was the dignity of the human being and, therefore, the need for an international framework to protect the rights of individuals everywhere. Courts such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have been very beneficial in dealing with violations of human rights and holding perpetrators accountable for international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The ICJ has further promoted global justice in several ways, including adjudicating inter-state disputes on claims of territorial rights, legality of the use of force, and violation of international treaties. These institutions are therefore aimed at making the world a better place so that individuals and states blame each other for their crime based on the violations of the code of international norms.

Global Justice and Economic Inequality:

Global justice encompasses both economic inequality among countries and beyond that of human rights and legal accountability. ‘Amartya Sen’, an influential political economist, argued how global justice ought to be concerned with capabilities of individuals to work towards dignified lives. Sen’s capability approach emphasizes that growth of freedom is to be put forward-in enabling people to lead the kind of lives they have reason to value-rather than the distribution of goods. The Global Justice would be achieved by fostering economic and political participation. The Global South, comprising developing countries, has also promoted more just economic practices, including equitable trade policies and relief from debt as a means toward global justice. The ‘Doha Development Agenda’ initiated by the WTO is an attempt to rebalance these economic inequalities through fairer rules of trade for the poor, but this process has moved very slowly and in fits and starts.

Practical Challenges to Global Justice:

Implementation of global justice remains challenging even with the existence of international institutions and legal frameworks. Such factors include power inequalities between nations, inconsistent national interests, and weak mechanisms on enforcement in international law. Wealthy and powerful nations often place their national interests above those of global justice as they do over climate change agreements, trade policies, and immigration laws, among others.

5.    Conclusion

With these general considerations of global justice in the context of international law, it does bear testament to growing acknowledgment of how our world is interconnected with the responsibility to protect human rights, ensure fairness, and develop greater global equality. The international law act or landmark has found the basis for a fairer society in the world through instruments such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a system of institutions such as that of the International Criminal Court, all which lay out fundamental rights and protections to be considered within his community or around the globe regardless of his nationality or status.

However, such pathway toward achieving true global justice is problematic. Economic inequalities amongst nations, environmental degradation that disproportionately affects the weak, and the differential exercise of power within the global institutions present clouds upon the imaginary horizon of a fair just world order. Yet ideas, such as distributive justice, responsibility to protect, and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities are bringing the international community ever closer to solving these problems.

This, in turn, means that the calls for international cooperation must be effectuated continuously and reforms must continually be pushed for existing systems since, at the very bottom, equality, dignity, and fairness become the only forms of human existence. International law is thus the enabler to more just and equal distribution worldwide; borders could not become barriers to justice but a goal shared by one and all. So far, the uninterrupted attempts to reform and strengthen these frameworks will be a venue for ushering in an even more just and humane world order.

6.    Bibliography

Related Posts