What do we mean when we talk of justice? This age-old question demands answers as we conceive justice as a form of legitimacy. Further, in order to change the world, which apparently seems unjust, one must come to the “right understanding of the problems” (TAN, p. 192) to be solved, and by gaining a greater understanding of the problem of justice we would be able to offer a solution to the problem.

This review addresses two books which try to make sense of the ideas of justice.

The book by Tan is an excellent philosophical inquiry that uncovers the nuances regarding questions of global justice by taking a problem-based approach. By discussing real-world problems and their accompanying philosophical arguments and positions, the author reveals the multitude of issues relating to global justice that exist in our world. As Tan says, an inquiry regarding justice and what we owe to each other is a normative inquiry concerned with “what ought to be” (p. 2), but a normative inquiry must be informed by real-world constraints and attention is drawn to specific global issues that can be test cases for re-evaluating our existing philosophical theories, as international players and institutions differ from their domestic counterparts. The book investigates topics such as world poverty, global economic inequality, nationalism and cosmopolitanism, human rights, cultural diversity and sovereignty, boundaries, secession and immigration, just wars and humanitarian intervention, climate change justice, and global health justice. While examining the aforesaid topics, Tan takes a reasonable approach, often preferring a middle ground rather than catering to an extreme. For example, with regards to immigration, she says the solution is not necessarily open borders but less restrictive borders. Tan suggests that for resolving conflicts between various schools and nuances of questions of global justice, the ideal solution is to aspire towards a just international institutional order consisting of international conventions and institutions. Thus, Tan’s book has a certain deference to global institutional order and governance and does not cater only to moral considerations. However, she does not attempt, nor claims to attempt, to settle the complicated debates on global justice, but rather distinguishes the main principles and debates surrounding each problem of global justice that she has identified. While it is an excellent book, it does not address certain current important global debates such as the problems of realising the sustainable development goals (including the UN SDGs) and the inclusion of mental health in global health justice, nor does it include domains such as high seas and outer space, which are free for exploration and use by all countries and the issues of global justice that arise with such freedom. Finally, as Tan herself acknowledges in the conclusion, while the book adopts a problem-by-problem approach, she is not renouncing aspirations of a theory of global justice. Despite the few shortcomings, Tan provides a commendable and exemplary overview of global justice and its nuances to a reader whom she keeps captivated with her lucid writing.

Another contemporary book that deals with justice, albeit with its theoretical underpinnings, engages in depth with John RAWLS’S A Theory of Justice (1971) and Amartya SEN’s The Idea of Justice (2011). While the introductory chapter provides the different definitions of justice attributed to ancient philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, much of the book engages in debate on Rawls’s and Sen’s positions on justice, which Das believes to be, at present, the most important mainstream approach and its alternative approach, respectively. Das also notes the ambiguity and multiplicity of aspects involved when one tries to define justice and attempts to minimise the gulf between Rawls and Sen. However, one must note that Das, at several places in his book, states that Amartya Sen’s views were utilitarian, yet Sen has explicitly criticised utilitarianism in his own literature – this particular aspect demands further clarification. Also, Das addresses certain aspects of ancient Indian philosophy, which is a laudable effort. Yet, a further deep-dive into rich ancient Indian philosophy along with reference to the primary texts would have been welcome. Das’s writing ensures formidable concepts and iterations of justice are easier to understand, however, Das’s own viewpoints are mostly restricted to the concluding chapter and more of the author’s views would have further delighted the reader. Ultimately, Das’s unique effort of trying to reduce the gap between the concepts of justice of Rawls and Sen is worthy of mention and is an important addition to the existing literature.