This article distinguishes between three methodologies for thinking about justice: principle-based, model-based and ‘realist’, concentrating mainly on the differences between the first two. Both model-based and realist approaches pride themselves on taking institutions seriously and argue that institutions make a fundamental difference to justice. This claim is at best not proven, and it may be possible to account for the difference that institutions make to what justice requires while retaining a non-institutional account of what justice is.
AltmanAWellmanCH (2009) A Liberal Theory of International Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
ArmstrongC (2005) Equality, risk and responsibility: Dworkin on the insurance market. Economy and Society34(3): 451–473.
3.
BertramC (2013) Property in the moral life of human beings. Social Philosophy and Policy30(1–2): 404–424.
4.
CaneyS (2011) Humanity, associations and global justice: A defence of humanity-centred cosmopolitan egalitarianism. Monist94(4): 506–534.
5.
CohenGA (2008) Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
CohenJSabelC (2006) Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?Philosophy & Public Affairs34(2): 147–175.
7.
DworkinR (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
FreemanS (2007a) Rawls. Abingdon: Routledge.
9.
FreemanS (2007b) Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
GalstonWA (2010) Realism in political theory. European Journal of Political Theory9(4): 385–411.
11.
GoodinRE (1988) What is so special about our fellow countrymen?Ethics98(4): 663–686.
12.
JamesA (2013) Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
KantI (1996) The metaphysic of morals. In: GregorMJ (ed.) Practical Philosophy (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–604.
14.
MillerD (2007) National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
MillsCW (2005) ‘Ideal Theory’ as ideology. Hypatia20(3): 165–184.
16.
NagelT (2005) The problem of global justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs33: 113–147.
17.
NozickR (1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
18.
RawlsJ (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia.
19.
RawlsJ (1999a) A Theory of Justice. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard.
20.
RawlsJ (1999b) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
RazJ (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
RipsteinA (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
RonzoniM (2009) The global order: A case of global injustice? A practice dependent account. Philosophy and Public Affairs37(3): 229–256.
24.
RossiE (2012) Justice, legitimacy and (normative) authority for political realists. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy15(2): 149–164.
25.
RossiESleatM (2014) Realism in normative political theory. Philosophy Compass9(10): 689–701.
26.
SangiovanniA (2007) Global justice, reciprocity, and the state. Philosophy and Public Affairs35(1): 3–39.
27.
SangiovanniA (2008) Justice and the priority of politics to morality. Journal of Political Philosophy16(2): 137–164.
28.
ScanlonTM (1998) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
SchefflerS (2001) Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
SenA (2006) What do we want from a theory of justice?The Journal of Philosophy103(5): 215–238.
31.
SimmonsAJ (2010) Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs38(1): 5–36.
32.
StemplowskaZ (2008) What’s ideal about ideal theory?Social Theory and Practice34: 319–340.
33.
SwiftA (2008) The value of philosophy in nonideal circumstances. Social Theory and Practice34: 363–387.
34.
WellmanCH (2008) Immigration and the right to exclude. Ethics119: 109–141.
