Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receive a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect them. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be met in every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias.

Finally, Rawls ranked his principles of social justice in the order of their priority. The First Principle (“basic liberties”) holds priority over the Second Principle. The first part of the Second Principle (“fair equality of opportunity”) holds priority over the second part (Difference Principle).

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. It is also the act of being just and/or fair.

Doctrine of necessity and absolute necessity Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of bias under natural justice. It allows authorities to do certain things which are necessary to be done at the moment, and those acts which would in a normal situation not be allowed by the law.

Natural justice allows a person to claim the right to adequate notification of the date, time, place of the hearing as well as detailed notification of the case to be met. This information allows the person adequate time to effectively prepare his or her own case and to answer the case against him or her.

Effect of Breach of Natural Justice. When the authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void.

The principles of Natural Justices are embodied in two basic ideas, audi alterem partem and nemo judex in causa sua.

Is there a difference between natural justice and procedural fairness? The term procedural fairness is thought to be preferable when talking about administrative decision making because the term natural justice is associated with procedures used by courts of law.

It is popularly known as the rule against bias. It is the minimal requirement of the natural justice that the authority giving decision must be composed of impartial persons acting fairly, without prejudice and bias. A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity and the trial is Coram non judice.

Bias means that a person prefers an idea and possibly does not give equal chance to a different idea. Facts or opinions that do not support the point of view in a biased article would be excluded. For example, an article biased toward riding a motorcycle would show facts about the good gas mileage, fun, and agility.

In a situation where a judge is biased or prejudice, the result could be a decision that is not fair or impartial to one party in the case. Often, a judge will identify their own inability to be fair, neutral, and impartial and will recuse themselves from the case.

Judges must provide reasons for their decisions. Sometimes judges will explain their reasons in court at the same time they give their decision on the case. Other times judges will give their decision in court at the end of the case but provide the reasons for their decision in a written decision at a later date.

If the judge is showing what you believe to be unfair bias against you in pretrial motions or hearings, speak to your attorney at length about how you two can make an excellent record at trial that can overturn any negative decisions on appeal.

After you file an Appeal, the Judge usually cannot reconsider his or her own decision. If you cannot file an Appeal, you can still ask the Judge to reconsider what he or she decided. Some decisions cannot be appealed at all, but the judge who made the decision can still change his or her mind.

Write a motion for reconsideration. You must explain why you think the ruling is wrong and the reason must be one of the nine reasons listed in Civil Rule 59(a) (on back of page). 2. File the motion within ten calendar days after the judge or court commissioner made the ruling.

Grounds of and period for filing motion for reconsideration. Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.

A motion for reconsideration is a legal request that allows you to ask the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. new evidence is available that you were not able to present before the judge made a decision.

Rawls orders the principles of justice lexically, as follows: 1, 2b, 2a. The greatest equal liberty principle takes priority, followed by the equal opportunity principle and finally the difference principle.

John Rawls (b. 1921, d. 2002) was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice as fairness describes a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system.

What is the difference between Justice and Fairness? Fairness is a quality of being fair, showing no bias towards some people or individuals. Justice, in broader terms, is giving a person his due. We want fair treatment in all situations as we believe that we are all equals and deserve impartiality.

In John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice treatise, the ‘original position’ was defined as a pre-political abstraction from reality in which a group of people who know nothing about themselves, such as their age, gender, or even names, are asked to choose principles of justice that could serve as the standard for a …

According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has.

: the justice that is concerned with the apportionment of privileges, duties, and goods in consonance with the merits of the individual and in the best interest of society.

b. Nozick claims that “almost every suggested principle of distributive justice is patterned” (1974, 156), where by “almost” he means “other than entitlement principles”. The fundamental problem with patterned principles is that liberty upsets patterns. Nozick argues this using his famous Wilt Chamberlain example.

Nozick takes his position to follow from a basic moral principle associated with Immanuel Kant and enshrined in Kant’s second formulation of his famous Categorical Imperative: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” The idea here is …

By a minimal state Nozick means a state that functions essentially as a “night watchman,” with powers limited to those necessary to protect citizens against violence, theft, and fraud.

End-state principles require constant intervention to keep them in force. Even if some favored pattern is achieved at time ti, by t2 the free choices of individuals will have upset the pattern. People will have given up their holdings for any number of reasons.

What is the difference between a process view of distributive justice and an end-state view? a. Process view is a system of economic distribution is just if the process by which it comes about is just with no redistribution, and end-state view is with regard to economic distribution does not depend solely on process.

Utilitarianism. Nozick created the thought experiment of the “utility monster” to show that average utilitarianism could lead to a situation where the needs of the vast majority were sacrificed for one individual.

First of all, Nozick thought that we have robust property rights and borrowing from John Locke he endorsed the notion that we own ourselves. As Nozick famously asserts, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)” (Nozick, 1974, ix).

The minimal state is a notion found within a particular variant of the limited‐​government variety of libertarianism. In the conception offered here, it was introduced by Robert Nozick, whose Anarchy, State, and Utopia is the most influential work supporting libertarianism by an American philosopher.

Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions: A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market. A common national defence to provide protection against foreign invaders.

Side-constraints are anything that acts to confine or restrict. The focus here is on moral side-constraints. When we speak of moral side-constraints, we have an understanding of moral rights as requiring that nothing be done to prevent those rights being exercised.

Nozick, in general, contends that people are born with fundamental individual rights. These individual rights are paramount and that there is no need for a system to achieve moral equilibrium. He rejects all end-result theories, i.e. distributive theories such as Rawls theory of justice.

It’s much like the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory. By his own words Rawls = “left-liberalism”. Differences: The primary difference between the two is in the treatment of the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of wealth (and even on that issue Nozick eventually flinches — see #1 below).

For libertarians, they are a primary value, so “what you have legitimately acquired is yours to do with as you will.” Locke’s phrase referring to the early conditions and resources of the natural earth, prior to the formation of government.

Nozick’s libertarian view of economic justice seeks to maximize individual (economic) liberty by minimizing coercion (taxation).