This thesis addresses a central question in the current philosophical debate on global justice: Can Rawlsian liberal principles of justice be coherently extended from the domestic to the global arena? My discussion of this question –which I call the 'question of extension' - is subdivided into three parts. In parts I and II, I critically analyse the two most prominent existing answers to it: the positive answer, championed by so-called cosmopolitans, and the negative one, championed by so-called social liberals. I show that these two answers encounter theoretical as well as practical difficulties, and argue that their inadequacies are traceable to methodological flaws in the two outlooks supporting them. In part Ill, I attempt to elaborate a new answer to the question of extension that avoids the theoretical and practical difficulties identified in parts I and II. Taking the lead from recent contributions to the global justice debate, I develop a deontological coercion-based approach to global justice. On this approach, principles of justice - at any level, global or domestic - place limits on how people may permissibly coerce one another (i.e., on how they may constrain one another's freedom) and apply to both interactional (direct) and systemic (indirect) coercion. I argue that this approach steers a middle course between cosmopolitanism and social liberalism without reproducing their difficulties, and provides a principled answer to the question of extension. On this 'coercion view', the applicability of principles of justice to the global arena depends on whether, and if so, how, coercion is exercised beyond state borders.

Today, it is nearly a given that groups seeking redress or reparation for past wrongs will receive some fonn of justice. Groups wronged by states often seek and receive apologies and compensation, to the point that it is now worthy of discussion when groups do not receive some form of compensation or acknowledgement. Yet how did this widespread acceptance of redress and reparation emerge? This thesis seeks an answer to this question, while also seeking to understand why it is that different groups, having experienced similar atrocities, have received varying degrees of redress. In order to do so, this thesis examines three countries and two victimised groups within each state-sponsored atrocity. In Germany, the Nazi government perpetrated genocide upon both Jews and Roma; in the United States, Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin Americans were both interned during World War II and, in the third case study, the Japanese military systematically enslaved and raped both Korean and Dutch women within occupied territories. In each of these cases, one victimised group bad more relative success in achieving redress and reparation than the other. This thesis thus considers the key historical background to the various social movements, the development of the social movements themselves and the gradual emergence of international norms and political opportunities which have combined to encourage what is today known as the redress and reparation movement. The thesis also seeks to determine factors which explain the differential success of social movements of groups which have experienced similar atrocities.

Miscarriages of justice occur far more frequently than we dare to believe (Yant, 1991; Naughton, 2009) and quite simply, ruin people’s lives. Many of these injustices have been revealed and ultimately rectified as a result of work by journalists who have dedicated energy and resources to investigating and publicising them. However, the involvement of the media in this area appears to have diminished over time, leading campaigners to claim that prisoners protesting their innocence should not now place too much faith in the informal involvement of journalists in their cases (Allison, 2004, n.p.). Such claims are of particular concern in the light of recent criticism that the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the formal investigator of miscarriages of justice, is not ‘fit for purpose' (Woffinden, 2010; Laville, 2012). Using a triangulated research strategy which included interviews, questionnaires, and narrative analysis, this thesis examined the positive role of the media in miscarriages of justice cases in England and Wales (from the 1960s through to the present day); and determined how the media’s involvement in such cases had changed over time. The results indicated that the media’s major contribution to miscarriages of justice comes in the form of publicity and investigations. Of these, media investigations were found to bring about the biggest impact in a case, in terms of the journalist discovering fresh evidence which subsequently proves to be crucial at a prisoner’s appeal. However, a number of motivations and considerations were found to influence journalists’ decisions upon whether to get involved in miscarriages of justice and which cases to get involved in. These included moralistic motivations and profit-related considerations. Regarding those cases which are taken up by the media, there is a five-stage process (a model of journalistic involvement in miscarriages of justice) which journalists enter into. During this process journalists come up against a number of obstacles which determine whether they can continue with their involvement. But what makes a successful investigative journalist? Certain attributes may be particularly important in order to achieve success as a journalist in investigating miscarriages of justice, attributes which, the quantitative research strand of this thesis revealed, are similar to those required by criminal investigators. This strand of the thesis also revealed that successful investigators draw upon more qualities from ‘within the person’ than from ‘within the profession’ in order to achieve success. Journalists’ aims in telling stories about miscarriages of justice are numerous and although these stories share similarities with investigative stories in other genres, they also differ from them. This is particularly so in terms of their endings, as comparison of their structure with that of the fictional detective ‘Whodunit?’ story demonstrates, (i.e. there is no solution to the crime). It was also found that journalistic involvement in miscarriages has changed over time, from the 1960s, when there was little involvement, to the late 1980s/early 1990s which saw massive media interest in miscarriages. From the mid-90s however, a number of factors, especially increased commercial pressures, began to hamper journalists’ ability to get involved in, and particularly to investigate miscarriages, factors which persist today. Despite such issues, it is argued that some journalists will always remain ‘crusaders in the name of the public right to know’, viewing it as their professional duty to investigate and expose miscarriages of justice. This is fortunate, as until radical changes to the appellate system occur, many prisoners will still, it is argued, need them in the pursuit of freedom from injustice.