Global

Readers can download free PDF copies by clicking on the icons above.

Feel free to circulate or cite in your work. But citations must attribute to the original source.

Global Justice Index Report

Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)

December 2019

The Fudan IAS acknowledges the generous support it has received from institutions such as the Fudan University School of International Relations and Public Affairs, the Shanghai “Gao Feng” Disciplinary Supporting Funds, Global Policy, Rutgers University, as well as useful comments and suggestions on this report from the following individuals: Arthur Boutellis (International Peace Institute), Daniel Callies (UC San Diego), Jean Marc Coicaud (Rutgers University), Selda Dagistanli (Western Sydney University), Marco Dugato (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore), Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (The New School, New York), Yannick Glemarec (Executive Director, UN Green Climate Fund), Carlos Manuel Gradin Lago (UNU-WIDER, United Nations University World Institute for Development), Terry Lynn Karl (Stanford University), Milorad Kovacevic (Chief of Statistics, UN Human Development Report Office), Jane Mansbridge (Harvard University) and Philippe Schmitter (European University Institute). We are also grateful for helpful advice, comments and suggestions from Yannick Glemarec, Executive Director, UN Green Climate Fund, and Milorad Kovacevic, Chief of Statistics, UN Human Development Report Office.

Co-Principal Investigators:
Sujian Guo
Jean Marc Coicaud

Research team /contributors (alphabetical order):
Yanfeng Gu (team leader)
Xuan Qin
Zhongyuan Wang
Chunman Zhang

Project Coordinator:
Xi Lin

Research Assistants:
Jingpu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Ziheng Guo, Xiaoyuan Li, Yawen Lin, Muye Nanshan, Zhenyu Wang, Xiaolan Xia, and Yuqing Zhang

I. Introduction

The Global Justice Index is a multiyear research project conducted at the Fudan-IAS to conceptualize and measure each country’s contribution to achieve greater global justice. In this study, we intend to provide our first-year achievements with the ranking of nation-states at the global level from 2010 to 2017. This study comprises four main sections. In the introduction, we discuss the development of the conceptual framework to justify our selection of dimensions and indicators for measurement. Next, in the section of methodology, we discuss the production, normalization, and aggregation of the raw data and the generation of the final results. The following section is the main findings, and we present the results through various visualization tools and provide regional comparisons for further analysis. In the last section, we discuss the applications and limitations of the index, and its potential further research trajectories.
Global justice is a broad concept composed of multilevel and multidimensional aspects belonging to both normative and empirical realities. A coherent, integrated theoretical framework that covers the normative basis and various empirical dimensions is therefore necessary to address some of the basic and important questions under study. Our study began with the conceptualization of global justice and was completed based on a theoretical paper on “Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators,” coauthored by the project leader, Sujian Guo, et al., published in Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019). The paper discusses theories, concepts, evaluative principles, and methodologies related to the study of global justice.
In this paper above, we attempt to clarify how to conceptualize global justice, how conceptual indicators can be selected and justified by theories, and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice. Through the synthesis of multiple theories and intellectual traditions in various cultural and political contexts, we conceptualize global justice from three main approaches—rights based, goods based, and virtue based—to develop a theoretical framework with a normative basis for the following measurement. Rights-based conceptualization focuses on the basic principles, rules, and sources of legitimacy of justice (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Rawls, 1971, 1999). Goods-based conceptualization concentrates on the material and institutional supports that the governments or institutions are obliged to provide (Arneson, 1989; Freeman, 2006; Nussbaum, 2006, 2011; Richardson, 2006). And virtue-based conceptualization regards justice as a virtue that an individual is willing to pursue rather than a regulation an individual is forced to comply with (Mo, 2003). The relationship between the three approaches of conceptualization is interdependent rather than separate, which indicates three interrelated components of a holistic whole. Additionally, the three approaches are complementary rather than competing, with the rights-based conceptualization forming the basic structure as the bones, the goods-based conceptualization providing substantial material supports as the muscles, and the virtue-based conceptualization emphasizing personal motivation and internalized willingness as a “heart” (Guo et al., 2019).
Based on the aforementioned theoretical framework, we propose two evaluative principles to further bridge the gap between theories and practice to determine and justify our selection of issue areas for evaluation. We call the two principles Common but Differentiated and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and Cosmopolitan but Due-diligent Responsibilities (CDDR). CBDR-RC addresses the issues “for which no single nation-state can be held directly accountable or responsible, matters that can only be tackled through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders” (Guo et al., 2019). For example, it is the responsibility of all to protect the climate system and ecological balance, and environmental protection is a task that cannot be handled by one country on its own. The principle of CBDR-RC, first adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reaffirmed in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, combines normative legitimacy and historical rationality. Although it was a principle that first aimed to determine the responsibilities of each country for climate change, it has been expanded to other global justice areas such as combatting transnational crime and global peacekeeping.
The second principle, CDDR, addresses that “all-nation-states are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid, in which context the least advantaged will have a due-diligent responsibility” (Guo et al., 2019). This principle is based on the concept of “mutual accountability” proposed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, adopted in 2005 at the Second High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to promote better cooperation between different actors in aid and development. This principle views such obligations as part of domestic affairs, such as anti-poverty and education policy, in the context of which the nation-states are expected to provide material and institutional assistance to their citizenry within their territories.
According to the principles of CBDR-RC and CDDR, we determine two clusters of global justice issue areas for practical measurement. Those issue areas that follow the principle of CBDR-RC are (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) terrorism and armed conflicts, and (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, and those belonging to the principle of CDDR are (6) anti-poverty, (7) education, (8) public health, and (9) the protection of women and children. In the following sections, we present the more practical part of operationalization and measurement to assess the performance and contribution of each nation-state to promote justice at the global level.

II. Methodology: Construction of the global justice index

In this study, we classify our data into four levels: indicators, dimensions, categories, and issues. The first and the bottom levels of our data provide the information on indicators, which is our raw data. The second level is named dimensions, which usually comprises several related indicators. The third level is categories and comprises several related dimensions. And the last level is the issue index, usually calculated based on two categories: contribution and performance.

The global justice index is calculated as follows.

III. Findings

In this section, we will report the results of the measurement and country ranking in the identified 9 issue areas related to global justice based on available data sources. We will present dimensions, variables, indicators, data sources, and evaluate and rank the countries in terms of performance and contribution. We then present the results through various visualization tools and provide regional comparisons for further analysis.

Issue 1：Climate Change

This report studies countries’ efforts to promote global justice from the perspectives of climate change, peacekeeping, and other issues. Climate change and peacekeeping are issues for which no single actor can be held directly accountable or responsible. They are issue areas that can only be addressed through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders. Global warming is a real, disastrous phenomenon, with many destructive effects. Scientists have concluded that human influence is most likely the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. If all countries remain passive about climate change, the situation will worsen, with dramatic consequences globally. Alternately, if countries cooperate and coordinate to combat global warming, the negative impacts of climate change on this plane would be significantly alleviated.

Dimensions and Indicators

Today, countries attempt to resolve climate change problems by, for example, reducing CO₂ emission, planting more trees, and supporting clean and renewable energy. Thus, our dimensions of climate change include CO₂ emission, energy use, forestry, and electricity (Table 1). We have selected more than ten indicators derived from four dimensions. In the energy use dimension, our indicators include energy use per capita, energy use per 1000 dollars of gross domestic product and fossil fuel energy consumption. In the CO₂emission dimension, four indicators are used: CO₂emissions from gas, liquid, solid, and fuel consumption per capita and CO₂ intensity per capita. The forestry dimension has two indicators. The electricity dimension has four indicators: electricity production from hydroelectric sources, oil, gas and coal sources, renewable sources, and nuclear sources. These data are all available for 195 countries from the World Bank. However, the time span is from 2000 to 2014 (2010–2014 is more important for our research purpose). We understand that these four dimensions and the indicators selected for this study may be not the most ideal, but they can to a large extent measure countries’ efforts to solve climate change problems.

Table 1: Data on Climate Change

Results

In this section, we present the ranking results of the countries’ contributions to global justice from a climate change perspective (Table 2). Table 2 shows five years of results from 2010 to 2014 in 195 countries.

Table 2: Country Ranking in the Climate Change Aspect of Promoting Global Justice

Country	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Sweden	2	2	2	2	1
Brazil	3	3	3	3	2
Gabon	8	9	5	4	3
Finland	15	12	8	7	4
Paraguay	5	7	6	5	5
Costa Rica	6	8	7	8	6
Congo	9	6	9	9	7
Democratic Republic of the Congo	7	4	10	10	8
Cambodia	29	26	15	11	9
Cameroon	11	10	11	12	10
United Republic of Tanzania	10	14	16	16	11
Nepal	12	13	13	14	12
Myanmar	4	5	4	6	13
France	20	17	17	17	14
Slovenia	26	24	24	23	15
Mozambique	16	11	12	13	16
Suriname	18	19	20	18	17
Switzerland	22	21	21	21	18
Guatemala	13	16	14	15	19
Ghana	17	18	19	20	20
Angola	14	15	18	19	21
Estonia	24	22	22	24	22
Colombia	23	20	23	26	23
Slovakia	34	32	31	29	24
Montenegro	21	27	25	22	25
Kenya	31	29	32	35	26
Austria	41	40	34	33	27
Albania	30	28	26	27	28
Peru	19	23	27	28	29
Latvia	40	39	28	31	30
Panama	32	35	30	32	31
Ethiopia	48	33	35	36	32
Honduras	27	25	29	30	33
Nicaragua	42	46	38	34	34
Sri Lanka	25	30	37	25	35
Norway	50	38	36	44	36
Spain	46	48	44	37	37
Uruguay	38	51	60	47	38
New Zealand	37	36	41	41	39
Cote d'Ivoire	35	34	40	45	40
Portugal	47	50	52	43	41
Georgia	28	41	45	39	42
Romania	53	58	57	48	43
Croatia	59	64	59	53	44
Hungary	60	60	55	52	45
Tajikistan	36	37	42	40	46
Indonesia	45	44	47	46	47
Senegal	44	43	43	50	48
Ecuador	49	47	46	55	49
El Salvador	39	45	48	49	50
Bulgaria	58	62	53	51	51
Namibia	54	52	50	56	52
Canada	64	61	54	58	53
Togo	77	53	51	57	54
Lithuania	76	71	69	61	55
Czechia	69	68	64	63	56
Philippines	56	55	56	59	57
Republic of Korea	62	59	62	66	58
Belgium	72	63	63	62	59
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	52	54	58	60	60
Nigeria	55	56	61	64	61
Russian Federation	65	65	65	65	62
Germany	63	66	66	68	63
Italy	82	81	73	69	64
Denmark	86	80	71	74	65
Benin	66	67	67	67	66
Bosnia and Herzegovina	73	85	81	76	67
Chile	75	73	70	71	68
Japan	43	57	68	70	69
Republic of North Macedonia	68	75	79	73	70
Dominican Republic	78	76	74	75	71
India	70	70	72	72	72
United States of America	85	82	76	77	73
Malaysia	80	79	77	82	74
Pakistan	79	77	78	78	75
Serbia	87	91	86	88	76
Greece	90	92	90	83	77
Mexico	83	84	83	84	78
Kyrgyzstan	74	74	82	79	79
Armenia	61	72	80	80	80
Niger	81	83	84	85	81
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	99	94	92	86	82
Haiti	71	78	75	81	83
Ukraine	96	89	91	89	84
Thailand	88	86	85	87	85
Jamaica	91	90	87	90	86
China	94	95	93	92	87
Mauritius	84	88	89	91	88
Poland	98	98	96	96	89
Bangladesh	92	93	95	95	90
Botswana	89	87	88	93	91
Turkey	93	96	94	94	92
Argentina	97	97	97	97	93
Ireland	103	102	100	100	94
Morocco	95	99	98	98	95
Belarus	100	100	99	99	96
Iceland	101	101	101	101	97
Cyprus	111	112	105	103	98
Australia	108	108	108	107	99
Netherlands	107	106	102	108	100
Brunei Darussalam		114	110	102	101
Tunisia	104	104	103	106	102
Iraq	106	107	107	109	103
Singapore	112	110	104	110	104
Republic of Moldova	110	109	111	104	105
Azerbaijan	102	103	109	111	106
Lebanon	105	105	106	105	107
Israel	115	116	116	114	108
South Africa	113	111	112	112	109
Egypt	109	113	113	113	110
Mongolia	117	118	115	116	111
Jordan	116	117	117	118	112
Luxembourg	126	127	124	121	113
Algeria	118	119	118	120	114
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	119	120	119	119	115
Kazakhstan	122	123	122	123	116
Libya	121	122	121	122	117
Malta	123	124	123	124	118
United Arab Emirates		126	126	126	119
Saudi Arabia	124	125	125	125	120
Oman	125	128		127	121
Kuwait		129	127	128	122
Bahrain		130			123
Trinidad and Tobago	127	131	128	129	124
Qatar				130	125
Eritrea	67	69
Uzbekistan	120	121	120	117
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	57	49	49	54
Viet Nam	51	42	39	42
Yemen	114	115	114	115
Zambia	1	1	1	1
Zimbabwe	33	31	33	38

Table 2 shows the countries’ climate-change ranking from 2010 to 2014. Due to the missing value problem, some countries (e.g., Afghanistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Monaco) do not have full data for the year 2014. However, 116 countries in Table 2 have full data. In general, we observe that developed countries have performed relatively better than developing countries in terms of promoting global justice from a climate change perspective. In most cases, countries’ rankings have been stable from 2010 to 2014.

Figure 1: 2014 index ranking of climate change on a world map

Figure 1 shows that the top ten countries in 2014 are Sweden, Brazil, Gabon, Finland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia, and Cameroon. Sweden and Finland are developed countries and the remaining eight countries are developing countries. Brazil, Costa Rica, and Paraguay are South American countries. Cambodia is an Asian country. Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, and Congo are African countries. China ranks 87^th in 2014, and the United States ranks 73^rd in 2014. This finding implies that the two largest economies must make more contributions despite the progress achieved prior to 2014.

Issue 2：Peacekeeping

Similar to climate change, peacekeeping has no single actor that can be held directly accountable or responsible. UN peacekeeping is an attempt, after peace has been negotiated or imposed by internal and external players, to address the causes of current hostility and to build local capacity for conflict resolution. A global effort is required to maintain international peace and security. All countries—big and small, developed and developing—can participate and make contributions.

Dimensions and Indicators

To measure a country’s effort to promote global justice by contributing to UN peacekeeping, our dimensions include personnel contribution and financial contribution (Table 2). The personnel contribution dimension is measured by the troops and police contribution indicator. The financial contribution dimension is measured by the financial donation contribution. Our data source is the United Nations peacekeeping official website and International Peace Institute. Approximately 120 countries are studied in this research. The time span for our study is from 2010 to 2017.

Table 3: Data on Peacekeeping

Results

In this section, we present the ranking result of countries’ contributions to global justice from the peacekeeping perspective (Table 4).

Table 4: Country Ranking in the Peacekeeping Aspect of Promoting Global Justice

Country	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
United States of America	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Ethiopia	19	15	5	5	5	3	2	2
India	4	4	4	4	3	5	3	3
Bangladesh	3	2	2	2	2	2	5	4
Pakistan	2	3	3	3	4	4	4	5
China	11	12	7	9	8	7	6	6
Rwanda	13	13	8	7	6	6	7	7
Nepal	9	9	11	8	7	8	8	li:nth-child(3)").addClass("act"); Links: Fudan IAS Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences 2807, East Main Building, Guang Hua Tower Fudan University 220 Handan Road Shanghai, 200433 P.R.China. Tel: 86-21-55665552 \| Fax: 86-21-55665552 E-mail: ias_fudan@126.com All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 2025, IAS-Fudan