Theorising Justice surveys philosophical and normative theories of justice and their application within more empirically based social and political science research. Together, the chapters highlight the multifaceted nature of justice as an analytical and political concept and avoids advocating ‘correct’ approaches to justice theorising. Each chapter provides overviews of the background, main tenets and critiques of dominant justice traditions. Part I examines theories of liberalism, libertarianism, cosmopolitanism and the Capabilities Approach, in addition to approaches critical of these mainstream justice traditions, such as feminism, Marxism, postcolonialism and Indigenous perspectives of justice. Yet, a principal concern of the book is to promote further engagement with these differing conceptions of justice within social and political science scholarship. As such, chapters in Part II survey scholarship on environmental, climate, energy, spatial and landscape justice along with intergenerational as well as just transitions approaches. In doing so, the volume illustrates multiple methodological and conceptual approaches for analysing justice, illustrating how applied justice theories may usefully analyse problems of inequity, oppression and domination within more empirically focused research. As justice becomes increasingly important to the discourses within social science and policy scholarship, Theorising Justice will be a valuable reference for students, instructors and practitioners seeking to address the social, political, economic and ecological challenges we face today.
This chapter details canonical perspectives from the progenitors of the Capabilities Approach (CA). The CA approaches the concept of justice through the lens of well-being, a conceptual shift developed in opposition to the mainstream distributive theories of justice as inequality. The chapter highlights how CA theorists identify procedures for measuring inequality and human well-being, in addition to how metrics for identifying social and environmental inequalities can be determined and addressed. The chapter also addresses this approach’s primary critiques, which stress the CA’s tendencies towards individualism and its difficulty in incorporating more structural inequalities inherent to capitalist modernity. The authors end by suggesting that, while the CA is not a theory of justice in itself, its methodological flexibility positions it well to analyse situated inequalities within social, political and environmental research.
This chapter examines some of the more peculiar elements of a climate justice perspective, noting what differientiates it from an environmental justice one. It assesses the impact of interrelated structures of social, economic, and political inequality on experiences of a warming world, the growing disparities between its communities, as well as various efforts to overcome them.
In the concluding chapter, we illustrate connections between the different parts of the volume to identify potential areas for deepened engagement among justice theories. The chapter begins by discussing the role of liberalism as a touchstone for theories of justice and the limitations and opportunities this presents for justice theorising. The chapter then explores the connection between more theoretical approaches with those examining actually-existing circumstances of injustice. In doing so, we return to the forms, aspects and realms of justice to highlight how these feature throughout the chapter surveys, to analyse convergences and divergences among the approaches. In ending, the chapter offers a set of tables to help visualise and categorise the different traditions to provide readers a pedagogical resource useful for drawing connections and indicating avenues for future research.
This chapter provides an exploration of cosmopolitanism and its potential to promote more equitable and just societies. It examines some of the ways in which cosmopolitanism promotes the universal inclusivity of humanity (and, indeed, the non-human), identifying key issues of legal, political, moral and cultural concern within the tradition. In doing so, it also acknowledges the difficulties of enacting a global procedural and distributive justice on the basis of cosmopolitan ideals, noting how persistent racism, speciesm, gender inequalities, and war challenge them. That said, cosmopolitan theories of justice still offer important potentials for reimagining how democratic justice might be considered in terms of its global relevance, particularly in light of progressive efforts of late to decolonise the cosmopolitan tradition.
This chapter identifies how energy has been conceptualised as a good to be produced, distributed and consumed, illustrating close theoretical engagement with the forms of justice. As Sidortsov and McCauley note, given the tradition’s focus on energy systems as a whole, emerging contributions to this scholarship stress the importance of, and need for, recognitional and restorative approaches to justice. In particular, the authors identify a need for those affected by changes in energy systems to be heard and legitimised participants in decision-making regarding these infrastructural challenges. In addition, the authors highlight the connectivity and fluidity of this still novel body of justice scholarship, illustrating its overlapping, yet unique, foundations regarding energy as a primary object of justice analyses.
Environmental justice (EJ) is one of the most robust applied justice discourses rooted in social justice, ecological justice, and international environmental concerns. This chapter details how this wide body of scholarship has emphasised the distributive, procedural, retributive and recognitional features of justice across various social categories, especially race, ethnicity and class. The social movement for EJ connected to conceptualisations of EJ similarly seeks to address the disproportionate impact of environmental harms and amenities on marginalised populations, as well as inequalities in decision-making processes and power structures. Wood-Donnelly argues that for this movement and set of discourses to be most effective, EJ must consider both human and non-human aspects of environmental care and protection, and it must be applicable across geographical scales and timeframes. In doing so, it may better contribute to the improvement of human life as well as the protection of the environment as a whole.
While the question of why women were (and remain) excluded as rights-bearing subjects of justice has been central to feminist theorising, scholars more recently have begun to address concerns about who has the power to decide what is just and whether universal procedures for achieving justice can be realised given how different identity-based relationships dominate or oppress certain groups over others. This chapter examines how feminist scholars have recentred who constitutes the traditional liberal subject of justice, addressing how feminist scholars understand the substantive forms that injustice takes, illustrating how lived experiences of oppression and domination occupy the normative core of justice theorising in this tradition. But as Mitchell shows us, feminist justice is as concerned with the forms as much as it is with the aspects of justice, bringing our attention to the ways in which feminist scholars highlight the domain or where of justice. Feminist scholars draw attention not only to women’s exclusion from public participation but to the exclusion of the family unit as a legitimate scale through which just or unjust relations occur and can be theorised.
This chapter draws from Indigenous scholars and authors to identify general Indigenous perspectives on justice. The chapter begins by discussing Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies which are concerned with harmonious relations with human and non-human natures. It then examines the function of rights as tools towards realising justice by discussing legal and political literatures regarding the struggle and respect for specifically Indigenous rights to recognition and self-determination. In highlighting a range of perspectives on justice, the chapter suggests that Indigenous approaches to justice critically challenge the western dominance of justice theorising, by expanding alternative ways of understanding what just human/non-human relations can look like.
Centring on responsibility in relation to the temporalities of justice, this chapter examines the distinct qualities of an intergenerational justice approach, as well as noting how it overlaps with other positions (such as climate justice and just transitions). It engages with a variety of issues, such responsibility for the compound effects of cumulative acts of pollution, the non-identity of future beings, as well as prospects for greater youth participation in decision-making. Ohlsson and Skillington highlight the implementation challenges and critique that has been brought forward by intergenerational accounts of justice, where emphasis is placed on actualizing the principles of various international treaties and state constitutions affirming the rights of, or duties owed to future generations, as well as new political and legal opportunities. They conclude by highlighting how an intergenerational justice perspective redefines what has traditionally been thought of as imaginable in justice terms, stretching its boundaries to encompass the ‘not yet’ moment of various democratic potentials.
