ADNAAN BELIM

LLM (CONSTITUTION) 1ST SEMESTER

MID-TERM

ANS1-
Globalization has affected justice delivery mechanisms of nations around the world. It touches and
spreads the legal developments and debates which are going on in one part of the world to another
part of the world. The best example of this is the development of laws and concepts relating to
Human Rights, Competition law, Intellectual Property Rights, Cyber laws, Media laws etc. in recent
times. Globalization has affected the way these laws have taken shape in different countries around
the world. The provisions of the laws enacted in one country have a bearing on provisions enacted
in another country. This is because of the simple fact that Globalization has linked the economies of
nations which otherwise have no territorial or geographical connection.

India responded positively by opening up its economy by removing controls during the Economic
liberalization. As a result, Indian market faces competition from within and outside the country.
This led to the need for a strong legislation to dispense justice in commercial matters and the
Competition Act, 2002 was passed.

The development of the laws relating to Human Rights around the world can provide a great insight
into how globalization has impacted the way justice is administered as Human Rights laws kept on
developing around the world with the increase in Globalization and nations nowadays are very
concerned about human rights violations. There have been various conventions and conferences
globally to curb Human Rights violations and to improve the condition of human life and dignity
around the world.

ANS 2-
The concepts of law and justice are often confused and misinterpreted by many. While the two are
strictly connected, they are not the same thing. Justice is a broad concept that is based on equality
of rights, fairness and morality. Conversely, law is a body of regulations and standards set up by
governments and international bodies and is (or should be) based on the idea of justice. Laws are
written norms that regulate the actions of the citizens and of the government itself in all aspects,
whereas justice is a principle that may or may not be universally recognised.

The concepts of law and justice are fairly similar as most laws are thought to be just and fair. Some
of the main similarities between the two include:
1. Both concepts regulate human behavior and aim at creating a more just and equal environment;
2. Law should be based on the idea of justice and should be implemented and interpreted in a just
manner – without discriminations; and
3. Both are based on the ideas of Morality ,equality , order and fairness.
Justice is an inherent component of the law and not a separate  component .
Law and justice are two very different things that share a close relationship with each other.

In modern society, there are social institutions in place to enforce laws loosely guided by ethics and
justice. Law is the science of the ways people agree to regulate behavior within a community while
Justice is the art of practicing law.
Therefore, people may agree or disagree about a Law, but it is usually written down or so
commonly accepted as “common law” that the Law itself is a fixed object. Laws can be changed.
There are numerous ways to change Laws: through legislation, through Court judgements that set
precedents or actually change the wording and meaning of the Law, or through abolishment.
Laws are written rules and regulations which is established and enforced by the government and its
entities. Each country has its own laws applied to all states

The practice of the Law and its impact on people’s lives, individually or as a group or class of people
is where the Art of Justice is found. 
''JUSTICE'' can be defined as “rendering to each person what he or she deserves under the Law.”

Law may be defined as the body of principles recognized and applied by the State in the
administration of justice.

Natural Justice is “…a concept of common law which represents higher procedural principles
developed by the courts, which every judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agency must follow
while taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a private individual.”
Economic justice is “a set of moral principles for building economic institutions, the ultimate goal of
which is to create an opportunity for each person to create a sufficient material foundation upon
which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life beyond economics.”
Legal Justice is “…is exercised in fulfillment of  existing Law.”  This is what is commonly  known as
“…justice according to law….”
Both Law and Justice regulate large areas of human behavior, trying to create an equal
environment. Therefore, laws must be based on the practice of justice.

The terms “law” and “justice” refer to two similar yet different concepts. The ideas of law and
justice often go hand-in-hand but refer to two different ideas. Law is a system of regulations,
standards, principles and norms created by a country’s government in order to regulate the life and
the actions of the citizens. Laws are found in written codes and are enforced by the government
and its bodies, including security forces, police, judiciary, etc. Conversely, justice is a more abstract
concept based on the idea of equality of rights, and fairness. All laws should be based on the idea of
justice and should be implemented and enforced in a just way without discrimination of Sex ,
gender ,religion ,caste ,colour ,age , race , language or any other status.

ANS 3-
Cosmopolitanism has a bad name in law. Its tenets are routinely dismissed as naïve, sloppy, or even
disingenuous. Cosmopolitans are seen as committed to a world government in stark oblivion of a
political reality that continues to revolve around state sovereignty. The “dream” of uniting the
world assumes that individuals have obligations toward one another across and irrespective of
borders simply by virtue of belonging to the human race. But these are at most moral obligations,
and it takes a sloppy jurist to derive legal duty from moral obligation. Furthermore, lofty goals of
world unity deflate when given institutional form, hence the noted tendency of cosmopolitans to
gloss over issues of enforcement. So basic is the skill of separating law from morality and so
strikingly utopian are the cosmopolitan tenets that, critics conclude, persistence must be cover for
something else: “scratch a cosmopolitan and you’ll find an imperialist just below the surface. This
harsh indictment has more or less obliterated cosmopolitanism from contemporary legal discourse.
With few exceptions, drawn, unsurprisingly, from the ranks of international lawyers or from among
scholars of the European Union, the label “cosmopolitan” has become anathema. Even the case for
cosmopolitanism reinforces the indictment.
In order to be “useful in the real world,” one scholar argues, cosmopolitanism must be
deradicalized; it must be “understood to engage actual political duties, not to demonstrate their
evanescence and unimportance.” Cosmopolitanism will not get a seat at the table with the grown-
ups unless it accommodates “plausibility constraints.” But domestication is the wrong cure, just as
radicalism is the wrong diagnosis. Kant’s cosmopolitanism, which remains the most complex and
influential account, rejects the above assumptions in no uncertain terms. In the words of one
commentator, “[a] core issue for political cosmopolitanism concerns the role and importance of
states”—states, in the plural. Kant defends at great length the existence of a plurality of states, as
opposed to a unitary world government. Furthermore, his argument refers to specifically legal
duties, as opposed to moral or political obligations. Kant is adamant that his concern is “not with
philanthropy, but with right.” Far from being side lined, issues of enforcement are central to this
account. Finally, the intellectual history of cosmopolitanism is too complex to dismiss its driving
ideal as nothing more than an expression of imperialism. While it remains a danger that
cosmopolitanism will be used to claim universal relevance for viewpoints “infected by the
particularity of the speaker, the world of his or her experience, culture and profession, knowledge
and ignorance,” it is no less true that the reaction to the horrors of European colonialism is a part of
the very origins of cosmopolitanism.
Unmarred by some unshakable original sin, cosmopolitanism stands in no obvious need of an
apology. Yet the goal of this Article is not to rehabilitate cosmopolitanism for its own sake—it is to
put it to work. Contemporary law has been much impoverished by the absence of the rich
cosmopolitan tradition. The partial exception remains international law, where Kant’s Perpetual
Peace, published in 1795, remains a text of reference. The emphasis on individuals as “human
beings, rather than as citizens of states” resonates with recent developments in supranational
human rights structures. For instance, Alec Stone Sweet’s recent study of European legal
integration draws specifically on Kant to define a cosmopolitan legal order as “a transnational legal
system in which all public officials bear the obligation to fulfill the fundamental rights of every
person within their jurisdiction, without respect to nationality or citizenship.”