Justice is a fundamental principle of law and political theory, often understood as underpinning the fair distribution of rights, responsibilities, and resources. In classical legal thought, justice remains mainly grounded in a liberal-legalist framework, which conceptualises it through normative ideas such as fairness, equality before the law, and the impartial application of rules (Rawls 1971, 2001). This perspective equates justice mainly with individual responsibility, formal legal procedures and criminal accountability, rather than addressing deeply rooted structural and historical inequalities of power.
Different strands of critical legal scholarship have questioned the universalising assumption that justice is a neutral framework of ideas, practices and procedures that can be applied equally everywhere. Scholars have long argued that conceptions of justice are a socio-cultural construct deeply embedded in national and local norms and traditions, often quite distant from the dominant liberal justice paradigm, which is predominantly Western-centric (An-Na ‘im, 2013; Mutua, 2002; Rajagopal, 2003; Grovogui, 2006). Political theorists such as Walzer (1983) contend that justice isn't a single, universal principle but rather varies across cultural and social contexts. In Spheres of Justice (1983), Walzer asserts that justice is inherently plural, manifesting in distinct ‘spheres’ determined by cultural and social factors.
For socio-legal scholars, justice is a socially constructed and contested concept shaped by broader social, political, and economic structures of power. Legal pluralists argue that ideas about justice emerge from the interaction among competing institutions, values, and traditions within state, customary, and community-based legal systems (Merry, 1988; Tamanaha, 2008). From this perspective, justice is not only produced through formal legal institutions but also created by the coexistence and interaction of diverse social and legal practices.
In the field of transitional justice, scholars emphasise that justice goes beyond criminal punishment or judicial accountability. Ferrara argues that Transitional Justice has fostered diverse ideas and philosophies of justice which transcend retribution and punishment, focusing on restoring fractured relationships, repairing past harms, and involving the community and victims (Ferrara 2026). Several transitional justice scholars claim that justice should be regarded as a multidimensional concept, encompassing the rebuilding of relationships, societal harmony, and the reconstitution of political communities within societies emerging from conflict or authoritarian rule (Ferrara 2026; Mani 2002; Sharp 2015, 2018; Mutua 2015).
Finally, critical legal approaches stress that justice is not a fixed or universally accepted idea. Instead, it remains disputed, evolving, and shaped by struggles over power, knowledge, and social values. Understanding justice thus involves analysing not only legal doctrines and institutions but also the cultures, traditions, and specific contexts in which they function.
Further Reading
- Mani, R. (2002). Beyond Retribution: Seeking Justice in the Shadows of War. Polity.
- Merry S. E (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896.
- Walzer M. (983). Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.
- Rama M. (2002). Beyond Retribution: Seeking Justice in the Shadows of War. Polity Press.
- Sharp DN (2019) What would satisfy us? Taking stock of critical approaches to transitional justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice 13(3): 570–589.
- Sharp DN (2019) What would satisfy us? Taking stock of critical approaches to transitional justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice 13(3): 570–589.
- Ferrara A. (2026). Reconceptualising Transitional Justice as a Pluralistic Theory of Justice, Social & Legal Studies1–22
- Mutua M. (2001). “Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights.” Harvard International Law Journal, 42(1), 201–245.
- Mutua M (2015). “What Is the Future of Transitional Justice?” International Journal of Transitional Justice, 9(1), 1–9.
- Sharp D. N. (2013). “Interrogating the Peripheries: The Preoccupations of Fourth Generation Transitional Justice.” Harvard Human Rights Journal, 26.
- Tamanaha B.Z. (2008) Understanding legal pluralism: past to present, local to global. Sydney Law Review 30: 375–416.