Introduction

In a fable of Aesop, several blind men touch an elephant. Each one comes to a different conclusion about the type of animal it is. One feels the trunk and decides that the elephant is long and thin like a serpent. Another touches the leg and concludes that it is thick and round like a tree. The third strokes the side of the elephant and determines that it is related to the rhinoceros.

Like Aesop's elephant, the term ‘international justice’ had been described in many, often contradictory ways. One set of authors holds that the term signifies a fundamental source or rationale providing the moral underpinnings from which law emerges. Conversely, other writers posit that international justice is not a source of law, but the ultimate goal or objective to be achieved by legal norms. It has also been presented as an alternative to law, with a meaning akin to fairness or equity. Narrower usages center on (1) legal institutions and procedures for accountability and dispute settlement and (2) the substantive content of international norms regulating the use of state power over persons and resources. To some extent, the different invocations of international justice correspond to classic distinctions between reparative, retributive and distributive justice. Consolidated, the various meanings of international justice can be said to describe an international system of norms, institutions and procedures aimed at maximizing the well-being of present and future inhabitants of the planet.