Rawls’ theory of Justice is expressed in a constructivist procedure. He holds that his constructivist procedure is free of metaphysical presuppositions. His constructivist procedure is here pursued in three stages: (1) in a theory of justice, Rawls intends to come to moral principles regarding the original position which could even result in other moral principles as well. He also asserts some metaphysical conceptions of human nature in regard to the original position. (2) In “Kantian constructivism in moral theory”, the original position is blurred and the intuitional ideas of democratic societies come to center. (3) in political liberalism, change in the procedure becomes more obvious and the procedure is surveyed considering public reason and overlapping consensus; finally, it is deduced that even in Political Liberalism in which Rawls wants to suggest political, not metaphysical justice, he cannot maintain any concept of the justice without any metaphysical presupposition and, contrast to Rawls’ view, it followed that his constructivist procedure is incomplete.

One of the constant and lasting issues of political philosophy and ethics is justice. That is why philosophers of different epochs and various approaches have dealt with this subject. This article has specifically chosen two philosophers belonging to two different eras, namely Plato and Rawls, who were directly or indirectly preoccupied with the concept of justice. The criteria for choosing these two intellectuals is that, beyond their individuality, they are the representatives of two different models; or more specifically, two opposite models in the field of philosophizing the concept of justice. Therefore, it is attempted to present a portion of their thought on the concept of justice by focusing on the comparable parts of their literary works, namely Plato's "Politics" and Rawls's "A theory on justice". By doing so, we find out that Plato begins the concept of justice from inside of the human being, whereas Rawls begins the issue of justice from outside of man.

In order to explain the concept of justice and its place in international arena, John Rawls formulates the principles that are arisen from international convention which can be reasonably and unanimously acceptable by all states, as a common and fair base. In examining the foreign policy of liberal democratic states, he measures and evaluates the relations of those states with other states, only with respect to the observance of mentioned principles on behalf of them. Thus, the relations of liberal democratic states with other liberal democracies (the so-called decent states) can happen freely and equally in all areas while those relations with the burdened states on the one hand and the outlaw states on the other are simply imaginable only in forms of economic assistance and just war respectively. In Rawls's viewpoint, this will be real meaning of justice in international arena. This concept today has provided the necessary theoretical foundations to justify the unilateral and arbitrary behavior of world powers in international arena.

Johan Rawls' political philosophy has played a major part in discussions of liberal reading of justice in the past three decades and his justice theory has left significant impact on the formation of concepts applied in prevalent arguments within everyday debates respecting justice and, politics in the contemporary West. For this reason, his works, particularly A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism have been identified as the most important works of 20th century political thoughts. In the Law of Peoples, Rawls generalizes the theory of justice as fairness to the sphere of international relations and law, thus making these discussions notable in philosophical terms. This paper first explains briefly the framework and main discussions of the Law of Peoples. In the, second part, some critiques of Rawls' discussions in the book are mentioned, and the third part assesses Rawls' theory from the perspective of its purview in the relations among the peoples.

Justice, like liberty, is one of the concepts that has always been a matter of concentration to political thinkers and different interpretations have been presented about it. Liberalism which was more conserned with liberty during the last decades of twentieth country, since then was associated by Rawls concept of justice and attracted much more attention. In his discussions, Rawls emphasizes on justice and equality as these principles which were absent of a liberal society. The present text, by applying a descriptive-analytical method, attempts to know how is applicable Rawls's theory of justice in a society. In terms of the research claim, Rawls attempt to justify the concept pf justice, entails all individual, social political, normative aspects of human relations within liberalism which means that his emphasis on justices is totally different from what in Marx's thought. In spite of Rawls basic project about reforming public sphere, he still views individual as a center of his concern and analysis while regards justice as main character of social institutions.

In order to create a fair and neutral position Rawls disregards the psychological features such as altruism and envy that might influence the establishment of the principle of justice. It is however worth noting that in this process Rawls takes the principle of mutually disinterested principle in original position for granted. Robert Nozick as Rawls's intellectual rival who is among the founders of the libertarian school criticizes Rawls on the ground that Rawls's initiation not only is not fair and neutral it is not in fact conformant to the human's nature. Removal of envy from the original position is regarded as indefensible by Nozick because he believes that all features and qualifications of human nature should be considered in a political theory. However, Nozick claims that envy is not completely absent in Rawls's theory. He believes that the principle of difference introduces envy to Rawls's theory. This article examines Nozick's criticisms and analyses his defense of the essentiality of envy in the development of a theory of justice. It also investigates whether Rawls's theory of justice will itself create the envy. The methodological framework employed in this paper for the examination of the views of Rawls and Nozick is comparison and analysis of the content.

The constitution is one of the most important concepts in public law that many theories and interpretations have been put forward by jurists and scholars of political science and philosophy. John Rawls, a political philosopher and theorist of justice, has addressed some of the legal concepts associated with his theory in his grand theory of justice. One of these concepts is constitution that Rawls has taken this concept very carefully. He has attempted to address this concept using constitutional theory, especially in the United States and He has attempted to define, legitimate and amendment refine its various aspects. Because it is impossible to understand the constitution in the United States without constitutional review, Rawls also explored the important role this institution in the development and interpretation of the constitution. The constitution is so important to Rawls's thought that he also sees democracy in the light of this concept and defends constitutional democracy. This article has attempted to understand the constitution of Rawls by examining his writings.

This article analyzes John Rawls’s moral foundations and compares them with Descartes’ Provisional Ethics. The basis and consequence of these two moral theories are inclined, in the case of Rawls, to develop gradually. In the case of Descartes, they initially avoid lengthy philosophical assumptions and reciprocally settle for minimal intuitions or presuppositions in the field of ethics. Suppose Rawlsian liberal justice, as a whole, is regarded as a common denominator between law and morality and can be affirmed without attention to a particular school of thought. In that case, its more private aspect returns to the public sphere in the form of citizenship by a moral viewpoint, with the aim of interactions between individuals. It regulates, regardless of their intellectual orientation and behavioral tendencies. However, Rawls's theory, backed by Descartes's position, sees morality as a simultaneous right and obligation for citizens of a liberal society; A right that its provisional aspect does not preclude its generalization, but which is essential in the realm of the task of caring for its minimum character.