Global Justice Index Report Vol.:(0123456789) Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00148-z 1 3 O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E Global Justice Index Report Yanfeng Gu1 · Xuan Qin1 · Zhongyuan Wang1 · Chunman Zhang1 · Sujian Guo1 Received: 3 April 2020 / Accepted: 17 April 2020 / Published online: 4 June 2020 © The Author(s) 2020, Corrected publication 2020 Abstract 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 rank- ing 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 and evaluative principles to justify our selection of dimensions and indica- tors 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 fur- ther research trajectories. Keywords Global Justice Index · Indicators · Measurements · Methods · Country’s global ranking 1 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 * Sujian Guo sguo@fudan.edu.cn 1 Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2846-0303 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s41111-020-00148-z&domain=pdf 254 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 regional comparisons for further analysis. In the last section, we discuss the applica- tions 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 dimen- sions 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 the paper above, we attempt to clarify how to conceptualize global justice, how indicators can be selected and theoretically justified, and how those indicators can be conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice. Through the syn- thesis 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 norma- tive 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 concen- trates on the material and institutional supports that the governments or institutions are obliged to provide (Arneson 1989; Freeman 2006; Nussbaum 2006, 2011; Richard- son 2006). And virtue-based conceptualization regards justice as a virtue that an indi- vidual 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 motiva- tion and internalized willingness as the “heart” (Guo et al. 2019). Based on the aforementioned theoretical framework, we propose two evaluative prin- ciples 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 Dif- ferentiated 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 exam- ple, 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 Develop- ment, combines normative legitimacy and historical rationality. Although it was a princi- ple that first aimed to determine the responsibilities of each country for climate change, it 255 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 has been expanded to the other global justice areas such as combating 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-dili- gent 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 a 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 citi- zenry 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 fol- lowing sections, we present the more practical part of operationalization and measure- ment to assess the performance and contribution of each nation state to promote justice at the global level. 2 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 catego- ries: contribution and performance. The global justice index is calculated as follows. 2.1 First Step: Convert Indicator Indices To ensure comparability between indicators, we use the following two formulas to con- vert the raw data into comparable indicators: (1)iiij = actual valueij − min (actual value.j) max (actual value.j) − min (actual value.j) + 1 (2)iiij = max (actual value.j) − actual valueij max (actual value.j) − min (actual value.j) + 1 i ∈ {1, 2, ⋯ 192}, j ∈ {2010, 2011, ⋯ 2017}, 256 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 where actual valueij indicates the actual value of an indicator in country i in year j. min (actual value.j) is the minimum value of an indicator among all countries in year j, and max (actual value.j) is the maximum value of an indicator among all countries in year j. If an indicator positively relates to global justice, the first formula is used to convert the raw data; if not, the second formula is used. 2.2 Second Step: Population‑Based Weighting Consciously, countries with various populations should make different efforts to raise the welfare of their people to the same level. If one compares with the efforts that countries make to raise the welfare of their people; therefore, we weight indicators based on popu- lation size. Proceed as follows: First, calculate the weighted average of an indicator as per the following formula: iimj is the weighted average of an indicator. iiij is the actual value of an indicator in country i in year j. populationij is the population size of country i in year j. Second, calculate the weight of each country on an indicator as follows: ssij is the weight of country i in year j. Third, calculate the score for an indicator in country i in year j as follows: where IIij is the score of an indicator in country i in year j. We use IIij to further cal- culate the dimension global justice. 2.3 Third Step: Calculate the Scores of Both Dimension Indices and Category Indices For each variable, we calculate the score of the variable index as follows: where VIij is the score of the variable index. Similarly, we use VIij to further calculate the score of dimension indices as follows: (3)iimj = ∑ iiij × populationij ∑ populationij . (4)ssij = (iiij − iim) × populationij. (5)IIij = ssij − min (ss.j) max (ss.j) − min (ss.j) + 1 , (6)VIij = n √ ∏ k IIijk, (7)DIij = n √ ∏ k VIijk. 257 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 2.4 Fourth Step: Calculate the Score of the Issue Index We use DIij to further calculate the score of each issue in county i in year j as follows: 2.5 Last Step: Calculate Global Justice Index We use the following formula to calculate the score of the global justice index in coun- try i in year j: where GJij is the score of global justice in country i and year j. ISIijk is the score of issue k in country i in year j. 3 Findings In this section, we will report the results of the measurement and country ranking in the identified nine issue areas related to global justice based on available data sources. We will present dimensions, variables, indicators, and 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 fur- ther analysis. 3.1 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-twentieth 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. (8)ISIij = n √ ∏ k DIijk. (9)GJij = 9 √ ∏ k ISIijk, 258 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 3.1.1 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 CO2 emission dimension, four indicators are used: CO2 emissions from gas, liquid, solid, and fuel consumption per capita and CO2 intensity per capita. The forestry dimension has two indicators. The electric- ity 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 under- stand 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. 3.1.2 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 5 years of results from 2010 to 2014 in 195 countries. Table  2 shows the countries’ climate-change ranking from 2010 to 2014. Due to the missing value problem, some countries (e.g., Afghanistan, Zambia, Zimba- bwe, and Monaco) do not have full data for the year 2014. However, 116 coun- tries 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 shows that the top ten countries in 2014 are Sweden, Brazil, Gabon, Finland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cam- bodia, and Cameroon. Sweden and Finland are developed countries and the remain- ing 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 87th in 2014, and the United States ranks 73rd in 2014. This finding implies that the two largest economies must make more contributions despite the progress achieved prior to 2014. 259 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Ta bl e 1 D at a on c lim at e ch an ge C at eg or y D im en si on In di ca to r D at a so ur ce C ov er ag e Pe rf or m an ce E ne rg y us e E ne rg y us e (k g of o il eq ui va le nt p er c ap ita ) E ne rg y us e (k g of o il eq ui va le nt ) p er $ 10 00 G D P (c on st an t 2 01 1P PP ) Fo ss il fu el e ne rg y co ns um pt io n (% o f t ot al ) W or ld B an k 19 5 (2 01 0– 20 14 ) C O 2 em is si on C O 2 em is si on s fr om g as fu el c on su m pt io n (k t) p er c ap ita C O 2 em is si on s fr om li qu id fu el c on su m pt io n (k t) p er c ap ita C O 2 em is si on s fr om s ol id fu el c on su m pt io n (k t) p er c ap ita C O 2 in te ns ity (k g pe r k g of o il eq ui va le nt e ne rg y us e) p er c ap ita W or ld B an k Fo re st ry Fo re st a re a (% o f l an d ar ea ) Fo re st a re a (k m 2 ) W or ld B an k E le ct ri ci ty E le ct ri ci ty p ro du ct io n fr om h yd ro el ec tr ic s ou rc es (% o f t ot al ) E le ct ri ci ty p ro du ct io n fr om o il, g as a nd c oa l s ou rc es (% o f t ot al ) E le ct ri ci ty p ro du ct io n fr om re ne w ab le s ou rc es , e xc lu di ng h yd ro el ec tr ic (% o f to ta l) E le ct ri ci ty p ro du ct io n fr om n uc le ar s ou rc es (% o f t ot al ) W or ld B an k 260 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 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 42 261 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 2 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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 83 262 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 2 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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 130 125 263 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 3.2 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. Table 2 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 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 Fig. 1 2014 index ranking of climate change on a world map 264 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 3.3 Dimensions and Indicators To measure a country’s effort to promote global justice by contributing to UN peace- keeping, 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 finan- cial 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). 3.3.1 Results In this section, we present the ranking result of countries’ contributions to global jus- tice from the peacekeeping perspective (Table 4). Table 4 shows countries’ ranking in UN peacekeeping from 2010 to 2017. In gen- eral, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Rwanda, the United States, and China have made tremendous contributions to UN peacekeeping; among these coun- tries, China and the United States are UN security council members. Although India is not a UN security council member, it is a regional and rising power. Bangladesh is a small country, but is a top five country in its contributions to UN peacekeeping. Based on these data, countries’ willingness is more important than capacity in terms of deter- mining how much contribution one country attempts to make toward peacekeeping (Fig. 2). In 2017, the top five countries are the United States, Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The United States provided most funding to UN peacekeeping, and Ethiopia provided most troops and police for UN peacekeeping activities. Most of the developed countries are among the top 100, and some developing countries, especially those in Africa, did not contribute much. 3.4 Issue 3: Humanitarian Aid Humanitarian aid is short-term assistance, including material and logistic assistance, delivered to individuals in need. Usually, humanitarian aid is provided in response to natural disasters and emergencies. In these cases, providing help to save lives, reduce Table 3 Data on peacekeeping Category Dimension Indicator Data source Coverage Contribution Personnel contribution Troops and police UN Peacekeeping Website International Peace Institute 129 (2010–2017) Financial contribution Donation UN Peacekeeping Website International Peace Institute 120 (2010–2017) 265 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 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 8 Senegal 20 21 19 16 13 11 9 9 Egypt 6 7 10 14 15 20 14 10 Japan 7 6 9 10 10 9 10 11 France 8 8 12 12 11 10 13 12 Indonesia 23 23 23 23 26 15 15 13 Ghana 14 17 14 13 12 12 11 14 Germany 16 16 16 17 17 16 19 15 Burkina Faso 34 30 32 27 22 19 12 16 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 15 14 17 18 18 17 20 17 United Republic of Tanzania 32 27 26 21 19 22 18 18 Italy 10 11 15 15 14 14 17 19 Morocco 24 24 24 24 21 21 22 20 Nigeria 5 5 6 6 9 13 16 21 Spain 18 18 22 25 28 27 28 22 Chad 89 89 88 40 33 34 26 23 Togo 38 41 40 28 27 25 23 24 South Africa 22 22 21 20 20 23 24 25 Russian Federation 28 32 29 32 34 35 30 26 Republic of Korea 25 25 25 29 30 31 31 27 Uruguay 17 20 20 19 24 29 27 28 Niger 45 38 30 26 25 24 21 29 Brazil 21 19 18 22 23 28 25 30 Cameroon 76 76 72 80 29 18 32 31 Zambia 37 45 63 70 75 50 39 32 Mauritania 157 158 138 136 93 74 40 33 Mongolia 50 80 45 35 36 39 38 34 Canada 26 26 28 33 79 86 36 35 Benin 27 33 34 30 31 30 29 36 Malawi 68 42 35 41 40 40 37 37 Guinea 86 87 90 73 67 46 42 38 Jordan 12 10 13 11 16 26 33 39 Malaysia 30 29 27 34 37 41 43 40 Burundi 88 79 77 69 47 32 35 41 Cambodia 80 61 57 52 43 42 44 42 266 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Netherlands 39 40 42 46 35 33 41 43 Australia 36 35 39 39 42 44 46 44 Fiji 60 59 58 48 41 45 47 45 Ireland 52 48 43 45 49 52 52 46 Sweden 46 49 52 54 53 47 48 47 Uganda 66 88 94 93 96 100 49 48 Sri Lanka 29 28 31 31 32 43 51 49 Argentina 33 31 33 36 38 48 55 50 Congo 145 153 153 156 58 38 45 51 Gabon 143 142 144 143 69 53 56 52 Ukraine 53 56 46 43 44 49 50 53 Finland 59 62 59 51 46 51 54 54 Austria 40 39 38 42 50 54 57 55 Switzerland 47 50 54 55 55 57 60 56 Gambia 51 52 50 53 54 61 61 57 Norway 49 55 56 57 56 56 59 58 Portugal 44 47 53 71 73 71 77 59 Serbia 94 91 82 72 66 60 62 60 Saudi Arabia 64 65 68 68 74 73 66 61 Peru 54 54 49 50 51 62 58 62 Belgium 41 44 47 49 52 59 63 63 Denmark 48 51 62 62 63 63 67 64 Tunisia 58 95 92 67 76 69 65 65 Kenya 35 36 37 37 39 36 34 66 Chile 43 43 44 47 48 55 53 67 El Salvador 79 82 83 79 83 72 69 68 Slovakia 62 64 66 64 68 67 71 69 Guatemala 57 57 60 58 59 64 68 70 Greece 56 58 61 59 64 65 72 71 Turkey 42 46 41 44 60 66 70 72 United Arab Emirates 71 70 67 66 71 70 74 73 Djibouti 98 96 95 74 72 75 75 74 Cote d’Ivoire 69 68 69 60 62 76 124 75 Israel 67 69 71 76 78 78 78 76 Singapore 70 71 73 78 82 84 79 77 Paraguay 83 66 65 63 70 77 76 78 Yemen 63 60 55 56 61 58 64 79 Mexico 65 67 75 77 81 81 83 80 Hungary 73 73 74 75 77 79 81 81 Czechia 90 84 76 81 84 85 82 82 Romania 78 81 80 83 86 82 80 83 Sierra Leone 61 53 51 65 80 89 88 84 267 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 4 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Zimbabwe 75 75 85 82 89 92 85 85 Philippines 31 34 36 38 45 68 73 86 New Zealand 74 74 79 85 87 90 86 87 Poland 77 78 78 84 85 87 87 88 Kuwait 84 83 84 88 91 93 89 89 Qatar 93 93 87 90 94 94 91 90 Liberia 157 158 155 103 97 97 95 91 Estonia 111 108 108 108 110 98 94 92 Mali 81 77 81 87 90 88 90 93 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 55 63 64 61 65 83 107 94 Colombia 95 99 98 97 101 107 96 95 Namibia 87 86 89 94 88 91 92 96 Slovenia 92 90 91 95 98 96 98 97 Bosnia and Herzegovina 101 100 96 92 95 99 99 98 Thailand 82 37 48 96 99 80 97 99 Bhutan 158 159 162 163 149 112 103 100 Brunei Darussalam 105 97 99 99 105 102 102 101 Honduras 115 113 112 113 100 95 93 102 Armenia 151 150 140 142 125 103 101 103 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 102 104 97 98 103 101 104 104 Oman 114 112 100 100 106 106 106 105 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 106 106 103 104 109 110 105 106 Madagascar 91 92 93 89 102 108 100 107 Croatia 72 72 70 91 104 104 108 108 Kyrgyzstan 104 107 105 101 107 111 110 109 Luxembourg 96 98 102 102 108 109 109 110 Samoa 112 117 110 112 112 116 113 111 Kazakhstan 118 120 116 121 124 115 111 112 Cyprus 107 105 106 107 111 113 112 113 Algeria 116 110 111 110 114 118 115 114 Dominican Republic 129 127 132 130 131 136 132 115 Lithuania 119 116 119 117 116 121 120 116 Cuba 125 124 128 127 133 131 131 117 Bahrain 113 111 113 114 118 119 116 118 Ecuador 85 85 86 86 92 105 114 119 Libya 99 101 109 111 115 114 117 120 Viet Nam 132 133 133 133 136 127 121 121 Belarus 129 125 120 116 122 124 122 122 Latvia 126 126 127 126 132 130 126 123 Republic of Moldova 121 118 118 115 119 120 118 124 Democratic Republic of the Congo 109 102 104 109 57 37 84 125 Bulgaria 124 122 121 122 126 126 127 126 268 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Iraq 139 138 129 128 134 132 123 127 Iceland 108 109 115 118 121 123 125 128 Montenegro 128 123 122 123 127 133 129 129 Costa Rica 131 132 136 135 141 140 137 130 Malta 122 119 124 124 129 128 128 131 Solomon Islands 157 158 161 163 166 164 141 132 Central African Republic 100 94 101 106 117 135 163 133 Trinidad and Tobago 120 115 117 119 123 125 130 134 Bahamas 123 121 125 125 130 129 131 135 Azerbaijan 144 141 134 134 140 138 134 136 Papua New Guinea 154 151 143 138 150 143 129 137 Monaco 144 141 130 129 135 134 136 138 Lebanon 132 133 133 133 138 137 138 139 Georgia 150 149 151 154 157 154 135 140 Panama 138 137 139 140 146 147 139 141 Andorra 130 131 134 134 140 138 140 142 Myanmar 153 153 153 156 159 146 133 143 Turkmenistan 134 134 145 144 151 149 143 144 Syrian Arab Republic 136 135 137 137 144 142 144 145 Uzbekistan 148 147 147 147 154 153 145 146 Republic of North Macedonia 140 139 141 141 148 148 146 147 Guinea-Bissau 127 129 161 151 147 151 147 148 San Marino 144 141 147 147 154 153 149 149 Barbados 137 136 146 146 153 152 150 150 Botswana 141 140 123 145 152 150 150 150 Jamaica 103 103 107 120 113 117 142 151 Mauritius 146 146 148 149 156 155 151 152 Albania 97 130 150 152 142 141 153 153 Suriname 153 153 154 157 160 158 154 154 Cabo Verde 156 157 160 162 163 161 162 155 Mozambique 135 144 142 150 155 162 148 156 Angola 151 150 153 156 159 157 155 157 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 149 148 152 155 158 156 155 157 Equatorial Guinea 152 152 153 156 159 157 155 157 Sudan 151 150 153 156 159 157 155 157 Timor-Leste 157 154 126 139 137 139 152 158 Nicaragua 153 153 156 158 161 159 156 159 Tajikistan 117 114 114 105 120 159 156 159 Afghanistan 154 155 157 159 162 160 158 160 Antigua and Barbuda 152 152 154 157 160 158 158 160 Vanuatu 110 158 161 148 128 122 119 161 Eswatini 153 153 156 158 161 159 160 162 269 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 suffering, and maintain human dignity is a vital aspect of the global justice agenda. As a result, we include this humanitarian aid in our global justice index and measure each country’s efforts to provide humanitarian aid by evaluating their financial contribution to global humanitarian affairs. 3.4.1 Indicators We use ten indicators to measure each country’s efforts toward humanitarian aid. These ten indicators are food, health, water, emergency response, early recovery, coordination, education, protection, agriculture, and others, and indicate the sectors that receive the humanitarian donation of each country. The last indicator, “others,” denotes the part of the donation without a designated use. We count the humanitar- ian donation from each country to UN departments, nongovernmental organizations, and other relevant organizations such as the World Food Program, the World Health Table 4 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Guyana 156 157 160 162 165 163 160 162 Maldives 157 158 160 162 165 163 160 162 Haiti 155 156 159 161 164 162 161 163 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 157 158 160 162 165 163 161 163 Saint Kitts and Nevis 156 157 159 161 163 161 161 163 South Sudan 158 159 158 160 163 161 161 163 Belize 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Dominica 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Grenada 133 128 149 153 145 144 159 164 Marshall Islands 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Micronesia (Federated States of) 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Nauru 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Palau 142 143 135 132 143 163 162 164 Saint Lucia 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Seychelles 152 152 159 161 164 162 162 164 Tonga 156 157 160 162 165 163 162 164 Comoros 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 Eritrea 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 Kiribati 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 Lesotho 147 145 131 131 139 145 157 165 Sao Tome and Principe 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 Somalia 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 Tuvalu 157 158 161 163 166 164 163 165 270 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Organization (WHO), and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Data are obtained from the Financial Tracking Service database, managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It “aims to present a complete picture of all international humanitarian funding flows”, such that it “sup- ports the transparency and accountability of the humanitarian system and facilitates resource mobilization”1 (Table 5). Fig. 2 2017 index ranking of peacekeeping on a world map Table 5 Data on humanitarian aid Issue area Indicator Source Coverage Humanitarian aid Food Financial Tracking Service 181 (2010–2017) Health Water Emergency Response Early Recovery Coordination Education Protection Agriculture Other 1 Please check https ://fts.unoch a.org/conte nt/about -fts-1 for more information about FTS. https://fts.unocha.org/content/about-fts-1 271 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 3.4.2 Results Data of the past 10 years show that the US has always been the nation who contributes the most. The traditional liberal democracies, such as Britain, Germany, Canada, The Netherlands, France, and Australia, have a dominantly high proportion of being one of the top 20 contributors. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, high-income economies with the world’s largest oil reserves, have been in the top 20 contributors as well. China is the nation who contributes the most in Asia and ranks 16 in 2017, followed by Japan, Rus- sia, and India, who have been among the top 50 contributors in the past 10 years. Afri- can and Central Asian countries with poor economies rank relatively low (Table 6). This regional difference is more obvious on a map. Figure  3 presents a map of the humanitarian assistance contribution from each country in 2017. A darker color denotes a higher rank. On the map, the countries in East Europe, North America, and Australia are covered with a darker color and contributed the most, and countries in Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia are covered with a relatively lighter color. 3.5 Issue 4: Terrorism and Armed Conflicts Terrorism and armed conflicts are major challenges to global justice. The efforts by global partners to combat terrorist violence and conflict threats are a significant aspect of the global justice agenda. Global justice can improve if nation states increase their efforts to manage cross-national conflicts and domestic terrorist threats. In the past decade, the number of violent conflicts and terrorist attacks worldwide has increased. Thus, the international community and individual countries have a duty to prioritize conflict management and terrorism governance on their agenda and act to resolve the problems identified. 3.5.1 Dimensions and Indicators Using data from highly respected sources, our project measures each country’s influ- ence on global justice in the issue area of terrorism and armed conflicts by focusing on two categories: performance and contribution. Performance refers to the extent to which a country is involved in armed conflicts and terrorism attacks. This category is measured using five thematic indictors: (1) number of conflicts, (2) number of wars, (3) number of conflict deaths, (4) number of terrorism events, and (5) number of deaths from terrorism events. By contribution, it means how much a country has done to reduce armed violence and to improve global peace. This category is measured on the basis of two thematic indicators: (1) number of agreements and (2) achievements of agreements. Data on armed conflicts are collected and recoded from the UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset and UCDP Battle-related Deaths Dataset. Data on peace agreements are based on the UCDP Peace-agreement Dataset. Data on terrorism are from the Global Terror- ism Database (GTD). Because these data sources are widely used and respected, we adopt the concepts of “conflict” and “terrorism” defined in the datasets. Admittedly, 272 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 6 Country ranking in the humanitarian aspect of promoting global justice Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 America 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 United Kingdom 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Netherlands 7 6 6 8 7 5 6 8 Germany 5 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 Italy 12 14 18 16 11 12 11 7 Canada 6 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 Saudi Arabia 14 15 8 11 6 8 8 9 Kuwait 22 20 20 3 4 3 4 4 Spain 4 4 13 13 16 15 19 17 Ireland 16 16 15 14 15 16 15 15 France 9 9 10 15 8 10 7 6 Finland 15 13 12 10 10 13 13 14 Belgium 10 8 7 6 14 7 9 12 Afghanistan 36 85 82 68 89 75 82 73 Australia 8 10 11 9 12 14 14 13 Switzerland 13 11 9 7 9 9 12 10 Sweden 17 17 17 17 18 17 18 19 Norway 21 23 19 18 22 21 17 23 Denmark 23 25 24 19 20 19 20 21 New Zealand 32 24 27 26 27 26 26 24 Nepal 31 22 94 79 89 25 82 73 Greece 44 32 46 38 40 67 37 47 Luxembourg 27 29 22 21 24 23 23 26 United Arab Emirates 24 19 29 22 19 11 10 18 Turkey 11 12 23 24 25 28 29 22 Austria 26 28 26 23 28 24 21 20 Venezuela 105 36 94 79 17 84 82 73 China 20 18 21 29 23 22 24 16 Tajikistan 39 31 60 79 89 84 82 73 Azerbaijan 19 27 25 33 31 20 82 36 Thailand 47 72 84 60 55 35 73 53 Slovakia 49 105 43 41 60 45 33 35 Brazil 18 21 14 31 26 27 30 31 Romania 66 53 42 39 50 38 45 52 Estonia 42 37 35 28 32 30 25 27 Singapore 85 75 72 62 61 60 62 55 Poland 43 34 31 30 39 34 28 25 Japan 33 33 30 27 35 31 27 32 India 30 30 39 36 36 36 48 50 Belarus 34 40 33 32 42 33 32 38 Russian Federation 51 43 36 34 44 42 43 42 Bulgaria 62 55 41 37 56 43 38 39 273 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 6 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Portugal 45 57 45 40 38 39 47 51 Kenya 57 48 40 48 89 84 82 66 Slovenia 53 41 56 44 59 46 44 41 Malaysia 61 69 70 79 48 49 65 45 Lithuania 55 58 59 50 52 37 34 44 Kyrgyzstan 67 54 94 79 89 84 82 73 Latvia 81 52 54 45 47 48 57 73 Morocco 41 88 44 65 37 41 82 73 South Africa 68 50 47 49 49 51 54 46 Brunei Darussalam 99 73 63 79 53 84 82 73 Israel 98 78 69 79 43 84 82 73 Kazakhstan 59 56 76 61 64 54 61 64 Iraq 103 68 94 58 89 74 82 73 Czechia 73 62 50 43 57 44 48 49 Samoa 130 63 94 79 89 84 82 73 Monaco 79 67 64 54 63 55 58 73 Argentina 88 66 51 46 58 84 51 33 Malawi 130 105 37 79 89 40 82 73 Mozambique 112 105 52 69 89 84 82 73 Qatar 83 45 28 25 29 29 31 30 Malta 69 39 62 52 51 53 40 40 Tonga 130 60 94 79 89 84 82 73 Uzbekistan 89 71 94 79 89 84 82 73 Botswana 80 70 66 79 71 84 69 57 Philippines 97 44 34 35 45 71 60 29 Namibia 123 47 94 73 54 84 82 73 Ecuador 130 80 94 79 33 84 68 73 Cyprus 70 51 53 57 70 61 72 57 Sri Lanka 118 96 48 70 68 84 82 65 Andorra 72 65 65 53 65 63 66 59 Burkina Faso 102 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Peru 60 105 79 59 77 71 77 61 Mauritius 86 105 81 79 83 58 82 73 Ghana 25 105 61 79 89 84 82 73 Republic of Korea 105 82 73 63 69 65 67 60 Montenegro 91 42 68 55 66 84 75 73 Croatia 77 61 57 51 62 68 70 73 Tunisia 37 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Egypt 46 79 74 79 89 84 39 73 San Marino 92 76 77 79 78 76 82 68 Senegal 93 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Mexico 50 64 55 56 46 64 42 56 274 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 6 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Guatemala 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Bosnia and Herzegovina 74 105 94 79 89 84 82 54 Hungary 110 90 78 64 75 69 64 63 Iceland 122 92 88 67 80 70 76 62 Pakistan 111 49 32 66 30 18 22 28 Nicaragua 130 94 94 79 89 84 82 73 Gabon 109 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Trinidad and Tobago 76 105 94 79 80 62 82 73 Cambodia 124 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Antigua and Barbuda 94 105 94 79 89 59 82 73 Bangladesh 56 87 75 79 89 50 79 34 United Republic of Tanzania 130 105 85 79 89 84 82 73 Algeria 52 38 94 42 83 84 59 66 Indonesia 116 95 86 71 83 84 82 73 Bhutan 125 97 90 79 89 52 82 69 Albania 130 100 82 79 89 84 82 73 Chile 126 97 91 75 82 76 80 69 Guyana 90 88 94 77 79 84 82 73 Laos 130 101 94 79 89 84 82 73 Mongolia 126 86 94 79 89 84 82 73 Viet Nam 126 101 94 79 89 84 82 73 Angola 130 46 94 79 89 84 82 73 Armenia 121 105 87 79 83 84 82 73 Bahamas 107 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Bahrain 29 105 94 20 21 56 82 73 Barbados 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Belize 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Benin 107 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Bolivia 130 105 94 79 34 84 82 73 Burundi 101 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Cameroon 130 105 94 79 89 73 82 73 Central African Republic 100 105 94 79 41 84 63 73 Chad 96 92 94 79 89 47 82 73 Colombia 95 105 91 72 87 80 82 73 Comoros 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Congo 87 74 94 79 89 84 82 73 Costa Rica 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Cuba 40 105 38 79 89 84 82 73 Côte d’Ivoire 130 101 71 79 89 80 82 69 Democratic Republic of the Congo 65 83 67 79 74 84 52 73 Dominica 130 105 94 79 89 84 56 73 Dominican Republic 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 275 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 6 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 El Salvador 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Equatorial Guinea 113 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Ethiopia 130 26 94 79 89 84 35 37 Fiji 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Gambia 63 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Georgia 64 59 94 47 67 57 50 73 Grenada 84 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Guinea 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Guinea-Bissau 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Haiti 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Honduras 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Iran 117 105 94 79 89 78 82 73 Jamaica 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Jordan 130 105 94 79 89 32 82 73 Lebanon 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Lesotho 130 105 94 79 89 84 36 73 Liberia 35 105 94 79 89 84 82 11 Libya 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Madagascar 114 105 94 79 89 84 41 73 Maldives 130 81 94 79 89 84 82 73 Mali 130 105 94 79 76 84 82 73 Marshall Islands 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Mauritania 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Micronesia 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Myanmar 126 91 91 77 88 80 80 69 Nauru 130 105 94 79 89 84 53 73 Niger 130 105 94 79 89 84 55 43 Nigeria 78 84 94 79 72 66 78 48 Oman 28 105 16 12 13 84 82 73 Palau 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Panama 103 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Papua New Guinea 130 105 94 79 89 84 46 73 Paraguay 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Republic of Moldova 71 77 80 79 89 84 82 73 Rwanda 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Sao Tome and Principe 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Serbia 114 101 94 75 89 80 71 73 Seychelles 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Sierra Leone 119 105 94 79 89 84 74 73 Solomon Islands 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Saint Kitts and Nevis 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Saint Lucia 75 97 94 79 89 84 82 73 276 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 the current methods of measurement and index construction in this issue area are imperfect; for example, several countries experienced sharp ups and downs in certain years, which call for a closer assessment of the methodological process. Based on the starting point of this project, we are open to insights and suggestions from all sides to further improve our ongoing research (Table 7). All the indicators are calculated in an accumulated count. For example, an observa- tion in the UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset indicates that there was a conflict between Table 6 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 82 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Sudan 3 7 94 79 89 84 82 73 Suriname 54 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Timor-Leste 38 35 94 79 89 84 82 73 Togo 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Turkmenistan 48 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Tuvalu 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Uganda 120 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Ukraine 58 105 58 79 89 84 82 73 Uruguay 130 105 88 73 72 79 82 73 Yemen 130 105 94 79 89 84 82 73 Zambia 130 105 49 79 89 84 82 73 Zimbabwe 130 105 5 79 89 84 16 73 Fig. 3 2017 index ranking of humanitarian aid on a world map 277 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Ta bl e 7 D at a on te rr or is m a nd a rm ed c on fli ct s C at eg or y D im en si on In di ca to r D at a so ur ce C ov er ag e Pe rf or m an ce Te rr or is m a nd c on fli ct s N um be r o f c on fli ct s U C D P A rm ed C on fli ct D at as et ; U C D P B at tle -r el at ed D ea th s D at as et 19 2 (2 01 0– 20 17 ) N um be r o f w ar s N um be r o f c on fli ct d ea th s N um be r o f t er ro ri sm e ve nt s N um be r o f d ea th s fr om te rr or is m e ve nt s C on tr ib ut io n C on fli ct a gr ee m en t N um be r o f a gr ee m en ts G T D A ch ie ve m en ts o f a gr ee m en ts 278 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States in 2016 that reached the scale of the war (more than 1000 deaths). According to UCDP Battle-related Deaths Dataset, the esti- mate of the number of deaths caused by this conflict in 2016 was 2141. Thus, for these three countries, the number of conflicts and the number of wars all increased by 1 in 2016, and the total number of deaths involved in the conflict (number of conflict deaths) increased by 2141 in 2016. The indicator of agreements is measured according to the specific content of an agreement. More specifically, the UCDP Peace-agreement Dataset includes a series of variables that define the characteristics of an agreement (Table 8). Because countries with different population sizes experience different levels of governance challenges in managing conflicts and terrorism, the following indicators are weighted by population size in the corresponding year: (1) number of conflicts, (2) number of wars, (3) num- ber of conflict deaths, (4) number of terrorism events, and (5) number of deaths from terrorism events. The function to measure “achievements of agreements” is as follows: 3.5.2 Results Using index construction methods (see the methodological section), this sub-index ranks 192 countries from 2010 to 2017 according to their level of performance of and contribution to global justice (Table 9). The results demonstrate that the problems of conflicts, tensions, and terrorist threats remain alarming from 2010 to 2017, creating a substantial challenge to global jus- tice. According to the rank in 2017, China becomes the number one country and has the best performance best in controlling conflicts and terrorism and participating in peace agreements. China is followed by Japan, Brazil, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, Uzbekistan, and Poland. Countries in Europe and North America are ranked Achievements of agreements = mil_prov + pol_prov + terr_prov + justice_prov + outlin + pko + (3 − pa_type)∕2. Table 8 Variable code Indicator Value Meaning mil_prov 0–1 Whether a military agreement is reached pol_prov 0–1 Whether a political agreement is reached terr_prov 0–1 Whether an agreement on the territory is reached justice_prov 0–1 Whether a judicial agreement is reached outlin 0–1 Whether a negotiation agenda is set pko 0–1 Whether the agreement specify peace keeping measures pa_type 1, 2, 3 Agreement quality: 1 = all, 2 = partial, 3 = preliminary 279 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 9 Country ranking in the terrorism and conflict aspect of promoting global justice Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 China 5 2 6 6 11 5 1 1 Japan 7 4 8 7 6 12 4 2 Brazil 6 3 7 9 5 6 2 3 Viet Nam 9 5 9 8 4 4 3 4 South Korea 29 28 29 24 29 8 6 5 Uzbekistan 17 12 12 12 10 14 7 6 Poland 42 35 37 28 37 7 13 7 Madagascar 26 27 26 27 19 23 23 8 North Korea 23 18 16 14 14 13 10 9 Argentina 33 10 17 15 9 10 8 10 Indonesia 8 21 30 21 17 15 9 11 Kazakhstan 28 78 62 49 16 18 49 12 Morocco 15 42 11 11 8 17 17 13 Guatemala 32 30 44 70 21 21 18 14 Cote d’Ivoire 27 23 19 20 15 24 14 15 Tanzania 14 8 10 30 36 45 12 16 Italy 54 36 48 33 39 16 26 17 Malawi 34 29 28 23 18 20 15 18 Romania 72 63 63 58 62 29 21 19 Mexico 13 6 33 26 7 25 5 20 Ghana 22 17 36 22 31 31 29 21 Cuba 39 38 39 29 30 32 27 22 Bolivia 46 45 55 31 32 35 28 23 Haiti 47 46 41 32 33 36 55 24 Spain 40 31 35 38 41 9 11 25 Cambodia 35 37 31 45 27 39 24 26 Malaysia 52 51 60 76 72 37 70 27 Zambia 38 32 32 25 22 22 19 28 Senegal 62 94 108 68 57 51 25 29 Belarus 75 85 72 35 35 40 32 30 Netherlands 82 77 69 65 94 86 83 31 Bangladesh 36 22 22 90 78 121 67 32 Ecuador 31 39 38 40 20 30 33 33 Angola 41 19 15 13 13 11 16 34 Germany 10 25 13 10 24 83 64 35 Guinea 45 43 40 62 38 65 42 36 America 20 9 14 16 23 34 38 37 Benin 51 50 46 43 42 48 34 38 Bulgaria 104 108 117 109 102 71 54 39 Zimbabwe 56 49 34 54 34 27 22 40 Dominican 49 48 43 46 44 38 30 41 Peru 16 13 58 60 56 56 31 42 280 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 9 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Portugal 91 97 84 84 86 49 36 43 Nicaragua 74 65 64 55 80 52 43 44 Rwanda 108 72 101 94 54 44 40 45 Hungary 96 90 88 87 92 46 46 46 Kyrgyzstan 77 66 66 61 51 55 45 47 Canada 58 40 53 47 66 53 44 48 Honduras 57 68 49 73 48 41 47 49 Russian 127 112 106 102 55 50 68 50 Turkmenistan 79 71 67 64 76 58 50 51 Algeria 143 79 107 105 63 68 37 52 Singapore 119 116 115 111 53 59 51 53 Ethiopia 19 15 27 19 12 33 80 54 Iran 85 47 21 41 25 72 57 55 Slovakia 114 111 114 110 109 60 52 56 Uganda 99 16 54 18 85 54 86 57 Switzerland 61 81 52 67 40 61 56 58 Serbia 78 58 83 48 45 47 41 59 Congo 83 75 73 89 61 63 143 60 Costa Rica 80 73 71 66 59 64 59 61 Togo 64 60 61 63 52 66 48 62 Tajikistan 84 55 96 52 60 95 61 63 New Zealand 124 122 119 115 118 67 73 64 Lao 68 62 70 51 47 76 87 65 Oman 97 88 79 75 64 69 62 66 United Arab Emirates 105 96 91 97 116 100 100 67 Australia 66 59 59 53 90 93 72 68 South Africa 11 7 23 37 50 19 63 69 Croatia 125 123 121 123 117 70 65 70 Austria 102 100 95 99 97 57 69 71 Panama 88 82 76 74 65 75 78 72 El Salvador 70 107 109 107 104 73 58 73 Kuwait 98 101 82 78 67 127 113 74 Czechia 92 92 85 95 100 80 53 75 Mozambique 24 20 24 100 87 62 129 76 Azerbaijan 100 93 93 93 101 43 60 77 Venezuela 18 14 18 17 28 26 39 78 Eritrea 1 131 80 79 69 78 79 79 Denmark 121 110 112 112 128 119 114 80 Moldova 89 84 94 77 70 79 85 81 Chile 71 67 42 59 83 28 88 82 Uruguay 93 87 81 81 73 81 90 83 India 87 74 68 71 68 77 76 84 281 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 9 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 France 37 44 99 50 58 101 81 85 Tunisia 43 76 74 130 123 133 125 86 Mongolia 140 141 134 129 129 87 77 87 Georgia 152 143 135 127 127 91 109 88 Norway 123 157 116 114 114 84 66 89 Mauritania 109 115 78 86 77 92 75 90 Liberia 86 80 87 82 82 90 71 91 Namibia 107 102 103 101 89 97 89 92 Finland 115 113 113 113 111 115 91 93 Botswana 111 105 104 103 93 98 94 94 Papua New Guinea 63 57 56 44 43 42 35 95 Bosnia and Herzegovina 132 133 124 124 131 126 74 96 Albania 138 139 131 132 135 112 103 97 Lesotho 110 106 105 104 95 105 96 98 Sierra Leone 65 61 86 72 74 85 84 99 Slovenia 151 150 144 142 140 99 97 100 Belgium 90 86 89 85 110 96 119 101 Lithuania 135 137 130 126 130 88 92 102 Jamaica 101 95 90 91 91 89 82 103 Ukraine 48 41 57 39 2 3 104 104 Armenia 139 140 137 131 132 114 123 105 Republic of North Macedonia 150 148 150 141 146 123 95 106 Chad 55 34 47 57 71 156 93 107 Gambia 113 109 110 106 96 106 101 108 Trinidad and Tobago 136 124 120 138 106 118 112 109 Paraguay 94 99 97 120 121 132 124 110 Qatar 112 103 102 98 84 107 116 111 Sri Lanka 53 24 50 80 79 74 20 112 Mauritius 126 125 122 117 108 110 115 113 Equatorial Guinea 137 135 128 122 113 113 118 114 United Kingdom 103 89 92 118 105 104 106 115 Timor-Leste 130 128 123 119 112 111 117 116 Saudi Arabia 21 33 51 36 81 141 144 117 Cyprus 129 127 136 158 143 139 131 118 Sweden 106 98 98 96 103 131 110 119 Guinea-Bissau 122 117 125 116 107 116 111 120 Jordan 117 64 75 69 119 108 127 121 Eswatini 131 130 126 121 115 117 120 122 Burkina Faso 30 26 25 34 26 82 102 123 Latvia 148 149 145 143 142 109 99 124 Niger 76 54 45 88 75 162 133 125 Kenya 73 104 127 125 133 124 108 126 282 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 9 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Thailand 153 145 147 155 145 134 142 127 Colombia 142 126 139 137 141 128 121 128 Turkey 67 91 138 92 99 147 163 129 Burundi 149 132 100 83 88 168 164 130 Fiji 141 142 133 128 122 122 126 131 Gabon 120 114 111 108 98 102 98 132 Sudan 4 134 1 3 151 142 145 133 Estonia 158 160 154 152 154 136 122 134 Myanmar 59 11 65 56 49 94 107 135 Comoros 146 147 142 134 126 129 128 136 Guyana 144 146 141 133 125 130 139 137 Democratic Republic of the Congo 95 69 4 4 120 125 132 138 Israel 128 161 159 145 174 150 153 139 Ireland 134 136 158 153 153 145 130 140 Greece 156 118 129 149 124 120 138 141 Solomon Islands 155 152 146 144 134 135 135 142 Montenegro 168 168 166 167 163 144 134 143 Lebanon 118 129 140 174 175 161 157 144 Luxembourg 172 172 169 166 164 137 136 145 Suriname 154 153 148 146 137 138 140 146 Egypt 12 53 77 140 136 157 147 147 Pakistan 159 163 164 165 160 155 148 148 Cabo Verde 157 155 149 148 139 140 141 149 Nigeria 81 119 151 147 162 163 151 150 Bhutan 147 154 143 135 138 143 137 151 Brunei 161 158 155 151 144 146 152 152 Cameroon 60 52 20 42 157 166 146 153 Djibouti 2 144 153 139 150 151 149 154 Bahamas 163 162 156 157 148 148 155 155 Belize 164 164 157 160 149 149 156 156 Philippines 133 121 132 154 147 152 154 157 Iceland 180 179 179 173 176 153 159 158 Nepal 116 120 118 136 46 103 105 159 Barbados 166 165 161 156 155 158 161 160 Vanuatu 167 167 163 159 156 159 162 161 Maldives 162 159 160 161 169 160 158 162 Malta 160 156 152 150 152 154 150 163 Mali 44 70 3 2 3 2 160 164 Sao Tome and Principe 170 170 167 162 158 164 166 165 Samoa 169 169 165 163 159 165 167 166 Saint Lucia 171 171 168 164 161 167 168 167 Yemen 165 166 171 168 178 181 178 168 283 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 in the middle, for example, Germany is ranked 35th and the United States is ranked 37th. The reason for these two rankings is mainly because European countries and the United States have participated in international peace affairs, but have been involved in international and regional conflicts. Tuvalu and Nauru remain the two countries with the least impact on global justice in the issue area of terrorism and armed conflicts, a position it has held since 2014. Other countries on the bottom include Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palau, and Nauru. Although the ranks fluctuated during the obser- vation period, we observe that the 10-year trend is relatively stable and reflects the general situation on the ground. Figure 4, a world map of the 2017 index ranking, reveals that countries in the Mid- dle East and North Africa (the MENA region), Central Africa, and South Asia must do more to decrease conflicts and terrorist threats. Most countries in East Asia and South- east Asia contribute to global justice in a sense that they made progress in govern- ing conflicts and terrorism (except for the Philippines). Many countries in Europe and North America have room to improve in managing terrorism and reducing involve- ment in global or regional conflicts. Table 9 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Bahrain 145 138 176 181 177 170 165 169 South Sudan 50 56 2 1 1 1 170 170 Kiribati 178 177 174 171 165 171 171 171 Micronesia 179 178 175 172 168 174 173 172 Grenada 175 176 173 170 166 172 172 173 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 174 175 172 169 167 173 174 174 Tonga 177 189 189 188 187 175 175 175 Seychelles 181 181 178 176 171 177 176 176 Antigua and Barbuda 182 180 177 175 170 176 177 177 Andorra 183 182 180 177 172 178 179 178 Dominica 184 183 181 179 173 179 180 179 Libya 69 83 162 184 189 188 188 180 Marshall Islands 185 184 183 182 179 180 181 181 Central African 3 1 5 5 182 169 169 182 Syrian 25 151 170 178 181 186 185 183 Saint Kitts and Nevis 186 185 184 183 180 182 182 184 Monaco 188 187 186 185 183 184 183 185 Somalia 173 173 182 180 186 183 184 186 San Marino 189 188 188 187 184 185 186 187 Afghanistan 176 174 187 186 185 187 187 188 Iraq 187 186 185 189 191 189 190 189 Palau 190 190 190 190 188 190 189 190 Nauru 192 192 192 192 190 191 191 191 Tuvalu 191 191 191 191 192 192 192 192 284 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 3.6 Issue 5: Cross‑National Criminal Police Cooperation Transnational crimes are crimes that involve more than one country in their plan- ning and organization and are always accompanied by effects across national borders. Transnational crimes, because of their suggested cross-national harm on citizens, pose serious challenges to global justice. As a result, fighting transnational crimes has been a major domain of global cooperation to improve global justice. We involved this issue into our global justice index and measure each country’s contributions to fighting transnational crimes, by evaluating their financial contribution to Interpol and their promises to the relevant UN conventions. 3.6.1 Dimensions and Indicators We used two major categories to measure transnational criminal cooperation, and each comprises several indicators. The first category is the financial contribution to Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization). Because transnational crime involves more than one country, an international organization with a well-established commu- nication system is necessary to connect all of the countries, which is what Interpol does. Interpol is the biggest organization worldwide that provides technical and opera- tional supports to combat transnational crime.2 Financial donations to Interpol reflect the determination and contribution of a country to cross-national criminal coopera- tion. Thus, in addition, we measure the ratification status of each country to the UN Fig. 4 2017 index ranking of conflicts and terrorism on a world map 2 Please check https ://www.inter pol.int/en for more information about Interpol. https://www.interpol.int/en 285 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 treaties in regards to transnational crime cooperation. These treaties include the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its three supplement- ing protocols.3 Ratification of the treaties denotes compliance with the related require- ments and the promise to offer relevant assistance. As a result, the ratification status of each country also shows their contribution to the cross-national criminal cooperation (Table 10). Data for the past 8 years show that the US has always been the highest contributor. Traditional liberal democracies, such as Germany, Italy, France, Britain, the Nether- lands, Canada, Spain, and Belgium, have almost dominated the top ten lists. Countries in Latin America with serious problems of transnational crimes, such as Brazil and Mexico, have made substantial contributions to combat transnational crime and are within the top 15 contributors. China is the top contributor in Asia and ranks 10th in 2007. Additionally, China has been one of the top 20 contributors for the past 8 years. Increases in ranking are observed in Japan in 2017 and in the Republic of Korea in 2015, which is after they began to ratify the UN treaties that they had not signed (Table 11). The map shows each county’s contribution in 2017. The darker color denotes a higher rank. We observe that countries in North America, South America, Europe, and Australia made relatively greater contributions compared with nations in Africa and Southeast Asia. In Africa, Algeria, Libya, and South Africa contributed relatively more than did the other countries (Fig. 5). 3.7 Issue 6: Anti‑poverty The problem of global poverty constitutes a substantial challenge to maintaining global justice. A widespread concern is that the world becomes increasingly unjust when economic growth is not equitably distributed, and in the past decade, the gap widened between the rich and poor. According to estimates from the Work Bank, at least 10% of the world’s population lives on less than US$1.90 a day. Poverty allevia- tion is of substantial importance to improving global justice. Although global poverty rates have been largely decreased over the past decades, the performance of reducing poverty has been uneven in different regions and countries. Hence, this anti-poverty index helps to evaluate individual countries’ efforts and performance in poverty reduc- tion, as a means to improve global justice. 3.7.1 Dimensions and Indicators Based on the goods-based conception of global justice and the principle of CDDR (as elaborated in our concept paper), we assume that efforts to combat global poverty 3 These three protocols include the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children; Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; and Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition. 286 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Ta bl e 10 D at a on c ro ss -n at io na l c ri m in al p ol ic e co op er at io n Is su e ar ea C at eg or y In di ca to r So ur ce C ov er ag e C ro ss -n at io na l C ri m in al P ol ic e C oo pe ra tio n Pe rf or m an ce (t re at y ra tifi - ca tio n) U ni te d N at io ns C on ve nt io n ag ai ns t T ra ns na tio na l O rg an - iz ed C ri m e (2 00 0) U ni te d N at io ns O ffi ce on D ru gs a nd C ri m e (U N O D C ) 18 4 (2 01 0– 20 17 ) Pr ot oc ol to P re ve nt , S up pr es s an d Pu ni sh T ra ffi ck in g in Pe rs on s, E sp ec ia lly W om en a nd C hi ld re n, s up pl em en t- in g th e U ni te d N at io ns C on ve nt io n ag ai ns t T ra ns na tio na l O rg an iz ed C ri m e (2 00 3) Pr ot oc ol a ga in st th e Sm ug gl in g of M ig ra nt s by L an d, S ea an d A ir, s up pl em en tin g th e U ni te d N at io ns C on ve nt io n ag ai ns t T ra ns na tio na l O rg an iz ed C ri m e (2 00 4) Pr ot oc ol a ga in st th e Il lic it M an uf ac tu ri ng o f a nd T ra f- fic ki ng in F ir ea rm s, T he ir P ar ts a nd C om po ne nt s an d A m m un iti on , s up pl em en tin g th e U ni te d N at io ns C on - ve nt io n ag ai ns t T ra ns na tio na l O rg an iz ed C ri m e (2 00 5) C on tr ib ut io n D on at io n to In te rp ol In te rp ol 287 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 11 Country ranking in the cross-national criminal police cooperation Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 United States of America 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Germany 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Italy 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 France 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 United Kingdom 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 Netherlands 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 11 Canada 7 8 8 7 7 7 7 8 Spain 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 Belgium 9 10 11 11 11 13 15 16 Switzerland 10 11 9 9 9 10 12 14 Sweden 11 9 10 10 10 11 14 15 Australia 12 12 12 14 14 16 16 17 Brazil 13 13 14 15 15 14 10 9 Austria 14 15 17 12 13 15 17 18 Mexico 15 14 13 13 12 12 11 13 Norway 16 16 15 16 16 18 18 21 Denmark 17 17 16 17 17 19 20 24 Poland 18 20 20 20 20 20 19 22 China 19 19 18 18 18 17 13 10 Argentina 20 21 22 23 23 26 26 28 Saudi Arabia 21 23 21 21 21 21 22 23 Turkey 22 24 24 24 25 24 21 20 Russian Federation 23 26 27 27 28 25 23 19 Finland 24 18 19 19 19 22 24 25 Slovakia 25 28 28 29 31 33 34 36 South Africa 26 29 29 28 29 30 31 32 Chile 27 31 31 31 32 34 33 34 Kuwait 28 32 32 33 34 35 35 35 Libya 29 33 33 34 35 36 37 38 Peru 30 34 34 36 37 39 39 40 Slovenia 31 35 35 35 36 38 40 41 Algeria 32 36 36 37 38 39 38 39 Oman 33 37 37 38 39 41 41 42 Romania 34 38 38 39 40 37 36 37 Uruguay 35 39 39 45 46 48 49 50 Croatia 36 40 40 41 42 42 42 43 Nigeria 36 41 40 42 43 44 45 46 Cyprus 38 42 42 44 45 47 48 51 Dominican Republic 39 43 43 46 47 50 52 53 Kazakhstan 40 44 44 47 48 46 43 44 Lithuania 40 44 44 47 48 62 47 48 Belarus 40 44 44 47 48 50 51 52 288 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Bulgaria 40 44 44 47 48 52 52 53 Latvia 40 44 44 47 48 52 52 53 Trinidad and Tobago 40 44 44 47 48 54 55 56 Lebanon 40 44 44 47 48 54 55 58 Serbia 40 44 44 47 48 54 55 59 Estonia 40 44 44 47 48 54 55 59 Azerbaijan 40 44 44 47 48 54 55 59 Costa Rica 40 44 44 47 48 60 61 62 Tunisia 40 44 44 47 48 60 61 63 Honduras 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Zambia 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Montenegro 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Mongolia 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Nicaragua 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Laos 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Burkina Faso 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Republic of Moldova 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Senegal 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Paraguay 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Kenya 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Guyana 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Panama 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Cambodia 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Liberia 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Madagascar 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Rwanda 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Mali 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Jamaica 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Mauritius 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 El Salvador 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Guatemala 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Central African Republic 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Albania 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Sao Tome and Principe 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Malawi 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Turkmenistan 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Antigua and Barbuda 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Bahamas 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Mauritania 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Saint Kitts and Nevis 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Benin 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 289 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 11 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Democratic Republic of the Congo 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Bosnia and Herzegovina 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 United Republic of Tanzania 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Mozambique 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Lesotho 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Grenada 40 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Portugal 91 25 25 25 26 28 28 29 New Zealand 92 96 101 108 112 113 113 116 Hungary 93 30 30 30 30 31 32 33 Venezuela 94 97 103 32 33 32 30 31 Indonesia 95 98 104 110 114 114 114 117 Egypt 96 99 105 111 115 116 116 119 Philippines 97 100 106 112 116 117 117 119 Ukraine 98 102 108 42 44 43 43 45 Iraq 99 103 109 47 48 49 49 49 Ecuador 99 103 109 47 48 54 55 56 Togo 99 103 44 47 48 62 63 64 Armenia 99 103 44 47 48 62 63 64 Bahrain 99 103 109 114 118 119 119 122 Niger 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Gambia 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Namibia 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Tajikistan 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Cameroon 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Gabon 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Botswana 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Malta 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Georgia 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Timor-Leste 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Belize 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Djibouti 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Kyrgyzstan 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Monaco 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Myanmar 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 San Marino 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Guinea 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Suriname 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Seychelles 99 103 109 114 118 120 120 123 Ireland 123 127 133 137 140 141 141 144 Israel 124 128 134 138 141 142 142 146 Luxembourg 125 130 102 109 113 115 115 118 United Arab Emirates 126 129 135 139 142 144 143 145 290 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 11 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Malaysia 127 131 136 141 144 145 145 148 Iceland 128 133 138 143 146 149 149 152 Colombia 129 132 137 142 145 147 147 150 Qatar 130 134 139 144 147 148 148 151 Morocco 131 101 107 113 117 118 118 121 Cuba 132 135 140 40 41 45 46 47 Guinea-Bissau 133 136 141 114 118 120 120 123 Uzbekistan 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Equatorial Guinea 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Jordan 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Bolivia 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Uganda 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Chad 133 136 141 145 148 151 151 154 Japan 140 145 151 156 162 176 176 2 Singapore 141 144 150 155 161 143 144 147 Pakistan 142 146 152 157 163 164 165 167 Ethiopia 143 147 44 47 48 62 63 64 Afghanistan 143 147 153 158 148 151 151 123 Zimbabwe 143 147 153 145 148 151 151 154 Sudan 143 147 153 158 148 151 151 154 Sri Lanka 143 147 153 158 164 151 151 154 Comoros 143 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Congo 143 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Brunei Darussalam 143 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Yemen 143 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Micronesia 152 143 149 154 160 163 164 166 Republic of Korea 153 160 165 171 176 9 9 12 Czechia 154 161 166 107 24 27 29 30 Greece 155 22 23 22 22 23 25 26 India 156 27 26 26 27 29 27 27 Thailand 157 162 167 140 143 146 146 149 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 158 163 168 172 177 177 177 178 Haiti 159 44 44 47 48 62 63 64 Burundi 159 164 44 47 48 62 63 64 Nauru 159 164 44 47 48 62 63 64 Dominica 159 164 169 47 48 62 63 64 Ghana 159 164 109 114 48 62 63 64 Angola 159 164 169 158 48 62 63 64 Barbados 159 164 169 173 48 62 63 64 Sierra Leone 159 164 169 173 48 62 63 64 Côte d’Ivoire 159 164 109 114 118 120 120 64 Fiji 159 164 169 173 178 178 178 64 291 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 should respect the action of individual countries involved in improving the living conditions for the least advantaged within their respective jurisdictions. Therefore, to assess the contributions made by each country to global poverty eradication, we Table 11 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Viet Nam 159 164 141 145 148 150 150 153 Saint Lucia 159 164 169 145 148 151 151 154 Eritrea 159 164 169 173 148 151 151 154 Maldives 159 164 169 158 164 165 151 154 Marshall Islands 159 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Bangladesh 159 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Andorra 159 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Nepal 159 147 153 158 164 166 166 168 Tonga 159 164 169 173 164 166 166 168 Bhutan 159 164 169 173 178 178 178 179 Papua New Guinea 159 164 169 173 178 178 178 179 Samoa 180 164 169 173 164 166 166 168 South Sudan 180 181 169 173 178 178 178 179 Solomon Islands 180 181 182 182 182 182 182 182 Palau 180 181 182 182 182 182 182 182 Tuvalu 180 181 182 182 182 182 182 182 Fig. 5 2017 index ranking of cross-national criminal police cooperation on a world map 292 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 measure their progress in poverty reduction by focusing on three thematic indictors: (1) Gini index, (2) poverty gap, and (3) poverty rate.4 The World Bank is the main source of global information on extreme poverty. However, the global poverty data provided by the World Bank are primarily for devel- oping countries. Moreover, the data of developing countries suffer severe problems of missing values, with data appearing in certain years and missing in other years. Later in this report, we explain the imputation methods which we used to compensate for missing data of this type. To include more observation cases of developed countries, we supplement the World Bank poverty data with related information from the OECD Income Distribution Database. However, substantial challenges remain, because the two datasets use different statistical benchmarks and scales to measure the three indi- cators we use. To make the data comparable, we calculate the ranking score by meas- uring the extent to which the country’s performance in reducing poverty in a given year has improved compared with the year before. The data sources available limited our ability to rank all nation states (Table 12). 3.7.2 Results Due to data limitations, this sub-index currently has ranked 60–82 countries over the period of 2010–2017 (Table 13). The results reveal that except for the countries with missing data, the largest improvements in poverty relief were in developing countries, for example, Thailand and Argentina. There are a few clear patterns in the data. No country managed to improve on all three indicator domains—Gini index, poverty gap, and poverty rate. Moreover, the progress made by individual countries is unstable. Because this sub- index is calculated by measuring the improvement in poverty reduction performance compared with the last observation year, we easily understand that there are very rare cases that can make continuous rapid progress over 1 decade (Fig. 6). A world map of the 2017 index ranking of poverty relief demonstrates that coun- tries in Latin America made significant progress in addressing poverty problems com- pared with their performance in 2016. The countries of the Organisation for Economic Table 12 Data on anti-poverty Category Indicator Data source Coverage Performance Gini Index World Bank; OECD Income Distribution Database 60–82 (2010–2017) Poverty gap Poverty rate 4 Individual countries’ international commitment to reduce global poverty in other poor countries and regions is assessed by “humanitarian aid” in our project. Notably, many other aspects and indicators can be used to measure global poverty (e.g., living conditions). We excluded them from our measurement because of the severe problems in data quality and richness. We also provide statistical evidence that the omission of these indictors does not significantly affect the assessment and ranking. 293 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 13 Country ranking in anti-poverty aspect of promoting global justice Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Ukraine 2 15 18 5 48 64 3 1 Kazakhstan 6 2 5 4 53 58 60 2 Argentina 5 6 32 33 47 7 56 3 Republic of Moldova 7 4 17 6 3 37 19 4 Uruguay 8 7 31 70 5 36 4 5 Paraguay 22 33 4 11 56 17 43 6 Romania 60 81 74 76 29 13 18 7 El Salvador 20 42 12 13 40 12 39 8 Dominican Republic 19 51 49 27 11 9 5 9 Thailand 9 2 55 2 17 2 59 10 Armenia 46 54 8 69 26 15 17 11 Cyprus 2 NA NA NA 34 1 NA 12 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 34 10 68 19 20 41 53 13 Estonia 63 78 9 77 7 4 32 14 Ecuador 11 16 24 17 9 57 28 15 Indonesia 13 21 19 21 14 16 8 16 Colombia 14 19 34 26 16 19 30 17 Lithuania 16 63 72 47 61 56 52 18 Spain 43 69 47 80 33 45 25 19 Luxembourg 32 65 71 66 57 53 48 20 Mexico 10 31 51 63 63 10 58 21 Hungary 52 72 77 30 58 44 20 22 Canada 36 75 36 48 45 30 26 23 Republic of Korea 18 59 70 37 59 55 37 24 Switzerland 49 56 29 34 60 20 51 25 Ireland 55 35 53 18 64 18 50 26 Israel 53 34 61 60 36 46 12 27 Brazil 23 60 35 56 15 59 6 28 Denmark 26 66 42 68 31 31 42 29 Latvia 15 73 66 59 54 34 41 30 Czechia 33 49 22 74 46 49 27 31 Austria 28 67 60 29 27 52 44 32 Costa Rica 31 37 23 72 28 48 7 33 Belgium 38 61 62 44 22 51 23 34 Germany 27 39 25 67 51 50 45 35 Italy 57 41 58 58 38 54 11 36 Greece 59 79 67 38 52 29 9 37 Portugal 24 74 75 61 24 24 24 38 Panama 54 11 76 15 55 6 29 39 Sweden 51 48 16 75 21 32 46 40 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 44 62 56 51 41 38 35 41 Serbia 65 5 79 78 10 5 61 42 294 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Co-operation and Development (OECD) in North America and Europe show very slight improvements in reducing poverty, because these countries have largely elimi- nated extreme poverty and suffer from ceiling effects. Russia has much more room for improvement in its anti-poverty efforts. Due to data limitations (especially the missing data), we could not obtain a reliable ranking for many countries in Asia and Africa. However, it is worth noting that China’s poverty alleviation campaign in recent years has borne outstanding results. However, as data sources differ in statistical criteria, the results were not duly represented on the index, which greatly undermined its rankings. Our poverty index is based on three key indicators: Gini coefficient, poverty gap, and poverty rate. Unfortunately, because of differences in statistical methods and criteria, we have not found well-testified data related to China to replace or complement World Bank’s data for the indicators mentioned above. 1. Gini coefficient Gini coefficient is a widely used indicator for measuring the income disparity in a country or region. “Gini coefficient is calculated with income data by household Table 13 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Netherlands 35 58 64 62 44 40 40 43 Montenegro 25 82 81 35 3 62 54 44 Slovakia 47 64 57 65 30 27 36 45 Peru 12 25 15 25 18 22 16 46 Slovenia 50 68 21 71 32 43 15 47 Kyrgyzstan 62 14 80 73 4 61 2 48 Iceland 39 29 54 31 62 21 21 49 United States of America 45 55 59 57 37 25 49 50 Norway 40 70 63 50 43 35 34 51 Turkey 37 23 41 36 25 33 31 52 Finland 48 50 52 53 39 26 22 53 France 41 44 65 40 42 42 33 54 Russian Federation 30 8 48 10 49 23 55 55 Georgia 58 30 6 12 8 11 38 56 Poland 29 57 73 64 35 28 13 57 Honduras 56 80 78 24 19 39 14 58 Belarus 4 18 2 3 6 63 10 59 Malta 3 71 14 2 3 NA 1 60 Iran (Islamic Republic of) NA NA NA NA 66 60 47 NA Croatia 61 17 69 54 50 8 NA NA China NA 46 45 14 23 14 NA NA Republic of North Macedonia 42 27 13 16 12 47 NA NA Bulgaria 64 77 33 42 13 NA NA NA Djibouti NA NA NA 79 NA NA NA NA Mongolia NA 9 3 NA NA NA NA NA New Zealand NA NA 39 NA NA NA NA NA Pakistan NA 40 NA NA NA NA NA NA 295 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 or group. It varies with the source and criteria of the basic income data used. For instance, whether the income standards are testified, whether the general income standards or the disposable income standards should be used, whether the income data include in-kind benefits from government, or whether annual CPIs or regional price differences are taken into account, all these have an effect on the coefficient and its changes. One must pay attention to the comparability of basic data when making inter- national or temporal comparisons of Gini coefficients.”5 The Chinese National Bureau of Statistics has released China’s Gini coefficients from 2003 to 2016, which range from 0.45 to 0.5. They were calculated based on data from a sample survey of urban and rural household income and expenditure around the country,6 whereas the Gini coefficients released by the World Bank were calcu- lated based on data from surveys carried out by national governments and estimates Fig. 6 2017 index ranking of poverty reduction on a world map 5 WANG, Pingping. A Few Issues Regarding the Calculation of Gini Coefficients on China’s Resident Income. (http://www.stats .gov.cn/ztjc/ztfx/grdd/20130 2/t2013 0201_59099 .html). 6 As of December 2012, the national survey of urban and rural household income and expenditure had a sample size of 140,000 households—74,000 rural from 896 countries, randomly sampled through a strat- ified and multi-phase process, and 66,000 urban from 476 cities and counties, randomly sampled through a stratified and two-phase process. At the end of 2012, the National Bureau of Statistics established a new and unified household survey system and a uniform income index system, and selected a consistent survey sample. Since December 1, 2012, the 400,000 sampled households across the country have been surveyed pursuant to the new survey system. Please see WANG, Pingping: A Few Issues Regarding the Calculation of Gini Coefficients on China’s Resident Income. http://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/ztfx/grdd/201302/t20130201_59099.html 296 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 made by agencies under the World Bank.7 The two adopt different statistical methods and samples. From the above line chart, we can see that China’s Gini coefficients calculated by the National Bureau of Statistics are even higher than those of the World Bank. There- fore, they cannot be directly used to replace the latter’s statistics. To ensure that the poverty data are comparable across countries, we chose to use the Gini coefficients calculated by the World Bank. 2. Poverty gap Apart from the Gini coefficients, a lot of data on China’s poverty gap in recent years are also missing. Available data are particularly lacking in the calculation of each country’s poverty alleviation index. Poverty gap refers to the average income shortfall in proportion to the poverty line of poor families,8 and it is used to measure the depth of poverty in a country. The uni- versally accepted criteria are the following: poverty gap at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% population); poverty gap at $3.20 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population); and poverty gap at $5.50 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population). It means that different poverty lines (e.g., US$1.9 per day, US$3.2 per day, US$5.5 per day, etc.) are defined on the basis of the international purchasing power parity (PPP) of 2011 to measure the size of impover- ished population and poverty gap.9 Chinese authorities adopt the average disposable income of urban residents, rural residents, and others as criteria. So far, we have not found any shared criterion between them and the World Bank. According to the Working Plan for Archiving Pov- erty Alleviation and Development Records published by the State Council’s Leading 9 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), as a currency converter, is used as a solution to the issue of currency differences in cross-national comparisons, corrected for differences in price level. PPP estimates cur- rently used by the World Bank are based on the 2011 round of International Comparison Program, which is by far the most extensive international statistical survey involving the largest number of countries. 7 See: https ://datab ank.world bank.org/metad atagl ossar y/gende r-stati stics /serie s/SI.POV.GINI. 8 Please see: “Millennium Development Goal Indicators.” United Nations. 2008. https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/gender-statistics/series/SI.POV.GINI 297 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development in April 2014, during China’s “targeted poverty alleviation” campaign, “the national rural poverty line—RMB 2736 yuan, the per capita net income of rural residents in 2013 (2300 yuan in constant prices in 2010)—shall be adopted as the identification standard for the impoverished population.”10 The standard is adjusted every year in accordance with variations in CPI, cost-of-living index, etc., and it is much different from the statistical methods and criteria used by the World Bank and relevant UN organizations.11 For this reason, it is not suitable for direct cross-national comparisons, and is thus not included in the calculation of our index. 3. Poverty rate We faced the same issue in the poverty rate calculation. World Bank’s poverty headcount ratios are calculated based on the poverty lines determined on the basis of the PPP in 2011 (e.g., US$1.9 per day, US$3.2 per day, US$5.5 per day, etc.): poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population); poverty headcount ratio at $3.20 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population); poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population). In its targeted poverty alleviation campaign, the Chinese government adopted “pov- erty incidence” as a major evaluation criterion. [Poverty incidence = number of indi- viduals in poverty ÷ total headcount × 100%]. This rate is based on the poverty line of RMB 2300 yuan (per capita net income), which makes it rather different from World Bank’s statistical methods and criteria, and not suitable as a direct alternative to them. To ensure a plausible and operable comparative analysis of poverty data across dif- ferent countries, including that on China, we chose one single data source—the World Bank. The downside of this choice is that not all the data of every country in every year are represented by the resulting rankings, as many years’ numbers are missing and the data of recent years are not updated in a timely manner. We believe that the issue will be resolved when new data are released in succession, and we keep improv- ing our calculation methods. There is no doubt that “targeted poverty alleviation” and China’s other agendas for enhancing global justice have borne remarkable results. In the future, our project will be dedicated to the collection of country-specific data and exploration of conversion methods of different poverty lines to improve the compara- bility of China’s poverty alleviation data with its international counterparts and extend the coverage of the Global Justice-Anti-poverty Index to more countries and years. 3.8 Issue 7: Education Education is essential for global justice. The  Convention on the Rights of the Child and the  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  explicitly 10 At the Central Working Conference on Poverty Alleviation and Development in Beijing on November 29, 2011, Wen Jiabao, then Premier of the State Council, announced that the central government would adopt the average net income of rural residents—RMB 2300 yuan—as the new national poverty relief standard. 11 Many research institutes and media agencies believe that the poverty line currently adopted by China is higher than that of the World Bank. 298 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 highlight states’ obligations to take measures toward realizing the right to education, to which the principle of CDDR applies (as elaborated in our concept paper). There is an international consensus as to the protection of rights to education. To improve global justice, steps must be taken by nation states to realize the basic human right of receiving education, using the maximum available resources. 3.8.1 Dimensions and Indicators Based on internationally recognized components of the right to education, this pro- ject measures each country’s influence on global justice in education by focusing on two categories: performance and contribution. We first focus on individual countries’ performance on basic education, by measuring the extent to which an individual’s educational right is adequately protected. Drawing on the literature, this category is measured along three thematic indicators: (1) school enrollment ratio, (2) children out of school, (3) pupil–teacher ratio. For the category of contribution, we assess the gov- ernment’s effort to improve its basic education nationwide by measuring government expenditure on education per capital while determining if a state is fulfilling its basic obligation.  The World Bank is the main source of global information on education (Table 14). 3.8.2 Results Using index construction methods (see the methodological section), this sub-index ranks 76–105 countries from 2010 to 2017 (Table 15). The data indicate that most countries take the necessary measures to protect chil- dren’s educational rights. The OECD countries including Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Ireland do particularly well in this domain. East Asian countries emphasis on education has been well documented, China and the Republic of Korea score relatively strongly in this issue area. Some rich countries in the Middle East and the Gulf Region such as Qatar and Israel have also invested heavily in education. Except for the countries with missing data, developing countries, including Pakistan, Tanzania, Niger, Mali, Guinea, and Senegal, are at the bottom. This finding largely occurs, because these countries either have insufficient educa- tional resources or are experiencing political instability. Although the country ranking fluctuates slightly, the general pattern is stable over the observation decade. On a world map (Fig. 7), the 2017 index ranking of countries in the domain of edu- cation illustrates that the Nordic countries including Sweden and Finland maintain their good score and are closely followed by other Western European countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Notably, Eastern European countries, namely, Cyprus, Slovenia, Poland, and Hungary are also doing well compared with many other countries and regions in the world. Some disparities exist in the implementation of the right to education in Latin America, with Argentina ranked 18th and Uruguay at 46th. Countries in Western Africa and South Asia are in a concerning situation of fulfilling the mandates that the state actively create the conditions necessary for individuals’ enjoyment 299 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Ta bl e 14 D at a on e du ca tio n C at eg or y D im en si on In di ca to r D at a so ur ce C ov er ag e Pe rf or m an ce E nr ol lm en t r at io Sc ho ol e nr ol lm en t r at io , p ri m ar y (% n et ) W or ld B an k 76 –1 05 (2 01 0– 20 17 ) C om pl et io n ra te s C hi ld re n ou t o f s ch oo l ( % o f p ri m ar y sc ho ol a ge ) Te ac he rs Pu pi l– te ac he r r at io , p ri m ar y C on tr ib ut io n G ov er nm en t e xp en di tu re o n ed uc at io n G ov er nm en t e xp en di tu re o n ed uc at io n pe r c ap ita l 300 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 15 Country ranking in education aspect of promoting global justice Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Sweden 1 2 1 2 5 4 4 1 Finland 3 4 6 5 8 5 5 2 China 4 1 3 7 4 6 3 3 New Zealand NA NA NA 9 13 10 6 4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 7 10 10 12 12 8 7 5 Israel 10 13 14 15 17 14 10 6 Germany 8 9 11 13 15 12 8 7 France 6 8 12 14 16 13 9 8 Ireland 5 6 9 11 14 11 12 9 Qatar 2 5 8 6 11 9 11 10 Cyprus 9 11 13 17 19 16 16 11 Republic of Korea 16 18 19 20 22 15 17 12 Spain 12 16 16 21 23 19 19 13 Slovenia 14 17 20 22 25 20 21 14 Portugal 15 19 22 23 26 21 22 15 Oman NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 Estonia 19 22 26 25 27 23 24 17 Argentina 25 25 28 28 32 24 26 18 Latvia 27 30 24 24 30 26 29 19 Chile 28 35 33 33 38 28 30 20 Cuba 20 23 23 35 40 30 31 21 Barbados 17 21 25 27 29 22 27 22 Brazil 18 20 21 26 28 27 28 23 Poland 21 26 29 30 31 29 32 24 Hungary 23 31 35 40 39 33 34 25 Lithuania 22 27 31 31 33 31 33 26 Russian Federation 29 24 27 29 35 37 39 27 Bahrain NA 36 34 38 41 32 35 28 Malaysia 30 29 30 34 37 35 36 29 Mauritius 39 44 45 46 44 39 40 30 Croatia 26 33 38 37 43 38 41 31 Mexico 24 28 36 39 36 34 37 32 Saint Lucia NA NA 49 45 47 42 38 33 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 36 52 40 56 83 40 42 34 Maldives 37 54 53 50 53 41 43 35 Belize 38 49 47 53 50 45 44 36 Romania 40 50 56 63 59 51 47 37 Peru 50 55 59 57 54 50 46 38 Eswatini 45 46 48 55 58 56 51 39 Bulgaria 42 47 54 47 57 55 52 40 Belarus 35 45 43 43 45 48 50 41 Kazakhstan 43 40 41 42 46 47 54 42 301 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 15 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Colombia 34 39 44 44 49 52 55 43 Tunisia 41 43 50 52 52 49 48 44 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) NA 62 64 66 62 59 56 45 Uruguay 48 32 69 36 87 44 94 46 Serbia 44 42 51 51 55 57 53 47 Bhutan 65 68 70 71 70 61 58 48 Ukraine 53 53 46 49 63 64 66 49 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 32 38 39 54 51 58 45 50 Indonesia 33 37 42 67 85 75 79 51 Lebanon 61 64 63 62 66 63 62 52 Republic of Moldova 52 56 61 59 65 67 65 53 Cabo Verde 51 57 62 65 68 68 61 54 Georgia 63 69 71 74 73 78 64 55 Albania 58 63 66 69 67 70 63 56 Mongolia 59 60 58 60 64 66 59 57 Uzbekistan NA NA NA 68 61 60 57 58 Sri Lanka 69 73 77 81 76 77 60 59 Lesotho 57 58 67 70 71 72 71 60 El Salvador NA 65 NA 72 72 71 67 61 Djibouti 70 66 75 73 78 73 73 62 Honduras NA NA NA 75 74 74 69 63 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 74 78 81 83 81 81 74 64 Nicaragua 67 75 76 78 77 80 70 65 Guatemala 64 71 74 79 79 79 77 66 Sao Tome and Principe NA 70 73 76 82 84 75 67 Kyrgyzstan 71 74 72 77 80 83 76 68 Philippines 78 85 93 88 75 76 72 69 Azerbaijan 56 61 65 61 60 65 68 70 Myanmar NA 88 NA NA NA NA NA 71 Tajikistan 72 77 78 86 84 85 80 72 Nepal 68 76 79 85 88 86 78 73 Ghana NA 81 88 80 86 82 84 74 Mauritania 76 82 86 89 90 90 89 75 Benin 73 79 82 87 89 87 81 76 Togo 77 80 85 92 91 88 85 77 Senegal 81 87 87 91 95 89 93 78 Gambia 80 84 83 93 92 93 87 79 Cameroon NA 86 90 NA 94 NA 86 80 Burundi 75 NA NA NA NA 97 97 81 Cote d’Ivoire 92 92 96 99 98 96 91 82 Cambodia 79 83 89 94 93 92 90 83 Rwanda NA NA NA NA NA NA 88 84 302 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 15 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Guinea 87 90 92 95 97 95 96 85 Burkina Faso 91 95 97 100 99 99 98 86 Mali 90 93 95 101 100 100 100 87 Niger 93 97 98 102 101 101 101 88 Bangladesh 84 NA NA NA NA NA NA 89 United Republic of Tanzania 88 98 100 103 102 103 102 90 Pakistan 95 101 102 105 105 105 103 91 Norway NA NA NA 1 1 1 1 NA Switzerland NA NA 4 3 6 NA 2 NA Malta NA 15 17 16 18 18 13 NA Japan NA NA NA 18 20 NA 14 NA Singapore NA NA NA NA NA NA 15 NA Italy 11 14 15 19 21 17 18 NA Brunei Darussalam NA NA 18 NA 24 NA 20 NA Grenada NA NA NA NA NA NA 23 NA Costa Rica NA 34 32 32 34 25 25 NA Fiji 55 59 60 64 56 62 49 NA India 96 100 NA 104 103 104 82 NA Sierra Leone NA NA 84 90 NA 91 83 NA Central African Republic 85 89 91 NA NA NA 92 NA Liberia NA NA NA NA 96 94 95 NA Chad 89 94 NA 96 NA 98 99 NA Iceland NA 3 5 4 7 2 NA NA Luxembourg NA NA 2 NA 3 3 NA NA Belgium NA NA NA NA 10 7 NA NA Turkey NA NA 37 41 42 36 NA NA Micronesia NA NA NA NA NA 43 NA NA Ecuador 46 51 52 48 48 46 NA NA South Africa NA NA NA NA NA 53 NA NA Dominica NA NA NA NA NA 54 NA NA Vanuatu NA NA NA NA NA 69 NA NA South Sudan NA 96 NA NA NA 102 NA NA Denmark NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA United States of America NA 7 7 8 9 NA NA NA Namibia 31 NA NA NA 69 NA NA NA Saudi Arabia 49 12 99 10 104 NA NA NA Viet Nam 47 41 55 58 NA NA NA NA Zimbabwe NA NA 80 82 NA NA NA NA Comoros NA NA NA 84 NA NA NA NA Mozambique NA NA 94 97 NA NA NA NA Uganda 86 91 NA 98 NA NA NA NA Paraguay NA NA 57 NA NA NA NA NA 303 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 of education. As shown in this index, significant worldwide disparities are observed in guaranteeing basic access to education, with developed countries substantially outper- forming developing countries. According to UN treaties, if individual countries do not have the resources to fulfill this obligation, “the international community has a clear obli- gation to assist”. Education is linked to another issue area covered by this project, human- itarian aid, which we discuss in another section of this report. Table 15 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Guyana 62 67 68 NA NA NA NA NA Kenya NA NA 101 NA NA NA NA NA Panama NA 48 NA NA NA NA NA NA Timor-Leste 66 72 NA NA NA NA NA NA Ethiopia 94 99 NA NA NA NA NA NA San Marino 13 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Congo 54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solomon Islands 60 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Guinea-Bissau 82 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Angola 83 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Fig. 7 2017 index ranking of education on a world map 304 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 3.9 Issue 8: Public Health Health is primarily viewed by many as a domestic issue. The connections can be unclear between public health as a domestic public good and public health as a country’ contribu- tion to the global public good. The rational is that when one country progresses in public health, the country improves the whole world’s public health. Notably, the global commu- nity, especially the United Nations, has taken many measures (e.g., sustainable development goals) to solve public health problems to promote an equal, just, and prosperous world. 3.9.1 Dimensions and Indicators Although public health has normally been considered a national public good, its deficit constitutes inequality at the global level, and its improvement has positive implications for global justice. In measuring public health, we first focus on health-related perfor- mance by measuring the protection of an individual’s right to health and then focus on a government’s effort to improve its health system. The dimensions we use include life expectancy, health infrastructure, key diseases, and governmental expenditure (Table 16). These data are from the WHO and covers 195 countries from 2010 to 2017. In this study, a major challenge is the missing value problem. Thus, data quality is unsatisfactory. Many countries, especially developing countries, have incomplete public health data. 3.9.2 Results In this section, we present the ranking result of countries’ contributions to global justice from the public health perspective (Table 17). The Table 17 shows 9 years of results— from 2010 to 2017—in 195 countries. Table 17 shows that China, Finland, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway have consistently performed the best in of global justice from a public health perspective. India and some African countries do not perform well in this regard and have much more to do to catch up. The general trend is that countries tend to do better when their economy is more developed. Thus, developing countries still have a many improve- ments to make in public health (Fig. 8). In 2017, Sweden, Finland, China, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are the top five countries in promoting global justice from a public health perspective. China is the only developing country among the top five nations. 3.10 Issue 9: Protection of Women and Children Protection of women and children is essential for global justice. Each country’s con- tribution (e.g., finical contribution) to women and children is difficult to distinguish from other issues such as public health, education, and poverty. Thus, we focus on the performance dimension, because it is measurable. Additionally, the protection issue concerns gender inequality and children’s situations. First, we use the ratio of health, demography, economic status, and political empowerment between male and female to measure gender inequality from the perspective of gender-based gaps in resources 305 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Ta bl e 16 D at a on p ub lic h ea lth C at eg or y D im en si on In di ca to rs D at a so ur ce C ov er ag e Pe rf or m an ce L ife e xp ec ta nc y L ife e xp ec ta nc y at b ir th (y ea rs ), bo th s ex es W H O 16 9– 17 8 (2 01 0– 20 17 ) L ife e xp ec ta nc y at a ge 6 0 (y ea rs ), bo th s ex es In fa nt m or ta lit y ra te (p ro ba bi lit y of d yi ng b et w ee n bi rt h an d ag e 1 pe r 1 00 0 liv e bi rt hs ), bo th se xe s N eo na ta l m or ta lit y ra te (p er 1 00 0 liv e bi rt hs ), bo th s ex es U nd er fi ve m or ta lit y ra te (p ro ba bi lit y of d yi ng b y ag e 5 pe r 1 00 0 liv e bi rt hs ), bo th s ex es A du lt m or ta lit y ra te (p ro ba bi lit y of d yi ng b et w ee n 15 a nd 6 0  ye ar s pe r 1 00 0 po pu la tio n) , b ot h se xe s H ea lth in fr as tr uc tu re Po pu la tio n us in g at le as t b as ic d ri nk in g- w at er s er vi ce s (% ), to ta l Po pu la tio n us in g at le as t b as ic s an ita tio n se rv ic es (% ), to ta l Po pu la tio n pr ac tic in g op en d ef ec at io n (% ), to ta l K ey d is ea se s Tr ea tm en t s uc ce ss ra te : n ew T B c as es Tu be rc ul os is e ff ec tiv e tr ea tm en t c ov er ag e (% ) R ai se d bl oo d pr es su re (S B P ≥ 1 40 o r D B P ≥ 9 0) (a ge -s ta nd ar di ze d es tim at e) 1 8  ye ar s, b ot h se xe s R ai se d fa st in g bl oo d gl uc os e (≥ 7 .0  m m ol /L o r o n m ed ic at io n) (a ge -s ta nd ar di ze d es tim at e) 18  y ea rs , b ot h se xe s In ci de nc e of tu be rc ul os is (p er 1 00 ,0 00 p op ul at io n pe r y ea r) , b ot h se xe s C on tr ib ut io n E xp en di tu re O ut -o f- po ck et e xp en di tu re a s a pe rc en ta ge o f t ot al e xp en di tu re o n he al th O ut -o f- po ck et e xp en di tu re (O O P) p er c ap ita in U S$ C ur re nt h ea lth e xp en di tu re (C H E ) p er c ap ita in U S$ D om es tic g en er al g ov er nm en t h ea lth e xp en di tu re (G G H E -D ) p er c ap ita in U S$ D om es tic p ri va te h ea lth e xp en di tu re (P V T- D ) p er c ap ita in U S$ 306 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 17 Country ranking in the public health aspect of promoting global justice Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 China 8 6 5 4 3 4 1 1 United States of America 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 2 Sweden 13 5 6 3 5 5 3 3 Germany 7 9 10 9 8 6 5 4 Austria 12 12 13 12 12 12 6 5 Belgium 10 11 12 11 11 10 8 6 Denmark 5 8 9 8 7 7 7 7 Singapore 22 21 19 21 21 18 12 8 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 21 20 20 17 14 9 10 9 Republic of Korea 24 24 23 23 23 19 14 10 Italy 15 15 15 18 19 17 13 11 Iceland 18 17 17 19 15 11 11 12 Luxembourg 3 7 7 6 6 8 9 13 Cyprus 23 22 22 24 25 25 20 14 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 31 35 31 32 29 26 21 15 Spain 19 19 21 22 22 21 18 16 Australia 9 10 8 10 10 27 17 17 Norway 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 18 Azerbaijan 32 31 30 29 28 28 24 19 Malta 27 27 26 27 26 24 22 20 Netherlands 16 16 16 16 18 16 16 21 New Zealand 25 25 24 25 24 22 19 22 Canada 11 13 11 14 16 13 15 23 Mexico 29 29 28 30 31 30 26 24 Russian Federation 39 36 34 33 32 32 27 25 Georgia 33 32 33 34 36 36 30 26 Sudan 70 66 48 48 45 40 36 27 Cambodia 62 56 38 37 34 35 34 28 France 17 18 18 20 20 20 23 29 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 30 30 32 42 40 37 35 30 Yemen 42 42 45 41 37 49 29 31 Grenada 40 39 43 44 43 39 37 32 Bangladesh 65 63 56 52 49 51 41 33 Bahamas 35 40 37 45 47 34 33 34 Morocco 46 45 47 46 44 47 38 35 Trinidad and Tobago 51 44 36 40 38 33 32 36 Bulgaria 52 46 50 43 42 44 39 37 Portugal 26 26 29 31 30 31 28 38 Argentina 87 83 70 60 59 48 43 39 Ecuador 48 52 40 51 39 38 42 40 Saint Lucia 38 33 44 35 57 42 40 41 Armenia 53 76 46 47 48 45 46 42 307 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 17 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Sierra Leone 57 54 54 61 60 55 48 43 Mauritius 55 55 52 53 46 50 45 44 Barbados 44 43 42 49 50 46 44 45 Tajikistan 43 53 53 55 51 52 50 46 Paraguay 45 47 55 58 54 54 49 47 Chile 41 37 39 38 41 41 47 48 Guatemala 54 48 49 57 56 58 52 49 Albania 56 59 57 62 53 56 54 50 Egypt 47 50 51 54 55 59 53 51 Brazil 34 34 35 39 35 43 51 52 Serbia 66 64 67 63 65 63 56 53 Montenegro 73 73 82 67 64 61 55 54 Ukraine 80 72 73 70 68 64 58 55 Honduras 74 67 66 77 79 70 61 56 Japan 6 3 3 7 9 23 31 57 Philippines 75 69 69 71 77 85 67 58 Malaysia 93 81 84 79 76 78 59 59 Sri Lanka 79 74 72 89 87 73 66 60 Kazakhstan 69 68 59 50 58 60 57 61 Lebanon 37 38 62 66 69 62 64 62 Guinea-Bissau 108 86 89 90 80 84 70 63 Uzbekistan 83 82 77 78 85 76 69 64 Afghanistan 68 57 71 69 75 79 63 65 Hungary 58 58 61 65 67 67 65 66 Turkmenistan 89 95 94 95 84 81 72 67 Lithuania 71 70 60 59 52 57 60 68 Djibouti 105 101 107 102 117 101 80 69 Finland 14 14 14 13 13 14 25 70 Republic of Moldova 78 90 78 87 95 86 78 71 Mongolia 103 105 87 82 91 88 77 72 Bahrain 119 123 81 76 74 66 62 73 Nepal 106 111 99 86 90 91 76 74 Cameroon 61 106 65 64 62 74 74 75 Costa Rica 92 88 86 83 83 69 71 76 Panama 107 100 104 100 96 80 75 77 Tunisia 94 92 90 88 86 87 82 78 Viet Nam 64 60 83 81 78 83 81 79 Belarus 137 122 137 97 93 100 85 80 Latvia 36 41 41 36 33 53 68 81 United Arab Emirates 67 71 79 72 66 68 73 82 Estonia 88 96 92 80 71 75 79 83 Algeria 113 108 116 117 113 106 95 84 308 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 17 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Nicaragua 124 119 98 93 105 98 91 85 Comoros 117 77 100 84 89 94 86 86 Togo 95 80 96 108 97 96 89 87 Mauritania 81 87 97 110 98 89 84 88 Mali 86 99 105 96 109 97 93 89 Central African Republic 110 102 102 104 100 102 94 90 Republic of North Macedonia 82 94 101 114 88 92 90 91 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 112 78 80 113 115 112 102 92 Antigua and Barbuda 101 109 111 112 108 109 96 93 Guyana 125 124 121 92 102 107 103 94 Peru 85 85 88 99 114 104 100 95 Uruguay 104 103 95 85 92 93 88 96 Slovakia 50 51 58 56 63 65 83 97 Czechia 63 65 76 73 73 82 87 98 Maldives 91 97 114 107 103 90 97 99 Saudi Arabia 111 114 112 111 101 95 101 100 Cote d’Ivoire 84 84 103 109 107 108 104 101 Slovenia 49 61 74 75 72 77 92 102 Haiti 140 148 142 131 128 120 109 103 Guinea 97 91 85 91 110 110 106 104 Turkey 126 116 118 116 111 113 107 105 Kyrgyzstan 114 117 117 115 104 99 99 106 El Salvador 109 110 113 120 119 114 114 107 Iraq 135 134 106 106 99 118 111 108 Kuwait 98 98 93 98 94 105 105 109 Jamaica 115 107 126 126 122 115 130 110 Indonesia 129 127 129 130 129 122 110 111 Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 104 108 101 106 111 108 112 Senegal 122 121 119 118 120 119 113 113 Qatar 77 93 110 103 82 72 98 114 Liberia 144 133 134 129 132 116 112 115 Uganda 155 152 131 143 138 129 121 116 Romania 123 125 127 123 124 121 116 117 Burkina Faso 141 118 124 135 126 127 120 118 Benin 120 126 120 119 118 123 117 119 Zambia 138 129 132 139 141 135 124 120 Colombia 128 128 133 134 131 130 122 121 Rwanda 143 142 139 142 142 132 125 122 Madagascar 127 135 125 144 121 136 118 123 Fiji 150 145 144 147 143 134 126 124 Chad 96 113 115 121 127 125 119 125 Belize 132 131 130 128 134 128 127 126 309 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 17 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 133 137 135 133 137 133 128 127 Cabo Verde 134 138 138 136 144 137 129 128 Myanmar 59 49 91 94 112 117 123 129 Niger 76 79 75 124 136 139 132 130 Bhutan 163 162 140 141 139 138 133 131 Dominican Republic 100 112 122 122 130 131 131 132 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 146 147 64 146 61 164 115 133 Cuba 151 150 154 151 148 140 135 134 Equatorial Guinea 145 143 148 138 133 143 137 135 Suriname 154 154 152 154 151 146 143 136 Thailand 142 146 145 145 145 144 138 137 Jordan 130 132 136 132 135 141 136 138 Eswatini 156 155 159 159 159 151 140 139 Croatia 90 115 123 125 125 126 134 140 Congo 118 139 151 149 153 149 142 141 Kenya 116 136 155 153 156 152 146 142 Ghana 161 163 147 157 147 145 139 143 Lesotho 157 158 156 156 155 148 141 144 Namibia 160 159 160 160 161 157 147 145 Tonga 158 157 158 158 158 153 144 146 Oman 149 151 149 152 149 147 145 147 United Republic of Tanzania 159 160 170 169 168 160 152 148 Papua New Guinea 167 168 166 168 166 161 153 149 Burundi 148 149 153 155 152 156 149 150 Angola 153 156 157 162 154 158 151 151 Pakistan 136 140 146 148 150 155 150 152 Gambia 152 153 150 150 157 154 148 153 Vanuatu 170 169 168 166 170 166 158 154 Seychelles 165 164 164 164 163 159 155 155 Solomon Islands 173 171 172 173 172 168 160 156 Botswana 168 167 165 171 167 165 157 157 Samoa 164 165 163 165 165 163 156 158 Gabon 147 130 143 140 140 150 154 159 Malawi 171 173 171 172 171 167 161 160 Sao Tome and Principe 131 144 161 163 160 162 159 161 South Africa 172 172 173 174 173 170 162 162 Timor-Leste 166 166 167 167 164 169 163 163 Kiribati 174 174 175 176 174 171 164 164 Ethiopia 175 175 174 175 175 173 165 165 Mozambique 176 176 176 177 176 174 166 166 Democratic Republic of the Congo 169 170 169 170 169 172 167 167 Nigeria 177 177 177 178 177 175 168 168 310 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 and opportunities in countries. Second, we focus on the gender difference of children’s situations from the perspective of poverty, health, and education. 3.10.1 Dimensions and Indicators Table 18 reports the indicators used in protection of women and children. We use two data sources. The information on children’s health and demography is from the WHO, and the remainders are from the World Bank. Table 17 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 India 178 178 178 179 178 176 169 169 Switzerland 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA NA Ireland NA NA NA 15 17 15 NA NA Greece 20 23 25 28 27 29 NA NA Poland NA NA NA 74 70 71 NA NA Libya 99 89 109 105 116 103 NA NA Zimbabwe 121 120 128 127 123 124 NA NA Brunei Darussalam 139 141 141 137 146 142 NA NA South Sudan NA NA 63 68 81 NA NA NA Micronesia (Federated States of) 162 161 162 161 162 NA NA NA Israel 28 28 27 26 NA NA NA NA Syrian Arab Republic 60 62 68 NA NA NA NA NA Eritrea 72 75 NA NA NA NA NA NA Fig. 8 2017 index ranking of public health on a world map 311 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Ta bl e 18 D at a on th e pr ot ec tio n of w om en a nd c hi ld re n C at eg or y D im en si on s In di ca to rs D at a so ur ce C ov er ag e Pe rf or m an ce (w om en ) H ea lth a nd d em og ra ph y L ife e xp ec ta nc y at b ir th , r at io fe m al e to m al e (y ea rs ) W or ld B an k 15 5– 15 9 (2 01 0– 20 17 ) M at er na l m or ta lit y ra tio fe m al e to m al e (m od el ed e st im at e, p er 10 0, 00 0 liv e bi rt hs ) N um be r o f u nd er fi ve d ea th o f t ho us an ds , f em al e Se x ra tio a t b ir th (m al e to fe m al e bi rt hs ) E co no m ic s ta tu s U ne m pl oy m en t, fe m al e (% o f f em al e la bo r f or ce ) V ul ne ra bl e em pl oy m en t, ra tio fe m al e to m al e W ag e an d sa la ri ed w or ke rs , r at io fe m al e to m al e Po lit ic al s ta tu s Pr op or tio n of s ea ts h el d by w om en in n at io na l p ar lia m en ts (% ) Pe rf or m an ce (c hi ld re n) C hi ld re n he al th a nd d em og ra ph y N um be r o f d ea th s pe r 1 00 0 + (i nc lu de 1 3 in di ca to rs ) W H O Pr ev al en ce o f t hi nn es s am on g ch ild re n an d ad ol es ce nt s, B M I < − 2 st an da rd d ev ia tio ns b el ow th e m ed ia n (c ru de e st im at e) (% ) C hi ld re n ed uc at io n (t he e du ca tio na l di ff er en ce b et w ee n m al es a nd fe m al es ) Sc ho ol e nr ol lm en t, pr im ar y (g ro ss ), ge nd er p ar ity in de x (G PI ) W or ld B an k 312 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 3.10.2 Results The ranking results of countries’ contributions to global justice from the perspective of protection of women and children during 2010–2017 are presented in Table 19. Our robust result during 2010–2017 in Table 19 shows that countries such as China, the United States, Russia, Mexico, Germany, and other North European countries are at the top levels for protection of women and children, which suggests that these coun- tries do well in protecting their women and children. However, most African countries (e.g., Nigeria, Congo, Egypt, and Kenya) and South Asian countries (e.g., Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan) display low levels. The following map displays the results of the protection of women and children in 2017. The higher the ranking in the protection of women and children, and vice versa. As the map shows, generally, the countries in the south and west and the countries in Africa rank lower, whereas China, the North American countries, and European coun- tries rank high (Fig. 9). Protection of women and children focuses on gender inequality. As introduced in the methodology section, we use a population-based weighed score of indices to con- struct the score of this issue in the perspective of global justice. Thus, the highest score does not mean the top level of protection of women and children. For instance, China ranks first of all countries in this protection of women and children in 2017. However, this finding does not mean that China performs the best of all countries; by contrast, the finding means that China has made a sufficient number women and children far better off than the world average. 3.11 Global Justice Index: Our Main Results This study has the limitation of the dilemma of missing values. For instance, for cli- mate change, most notably, the data on carbon emission are unavailable after 2014. Another limitation is that, for anti-poverty, the data for many countries were unavail- able. Thus, we provide a global justice index that excludes anti-poverty (Table 20) and climate change (Table  21), respectively. Next, we provide a global justice index that excludes anti-poverty and climate change (Table 22). Finally, we provide a global jus- tice index of all nine issues (Table 23). In Table 20, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and France rank as the top five in the global justice index that excludes anti-poverty. Other devel- oped countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Canada, and Finland also perform well in the global justice index. Developing countries, by contrast, do not perform well in general. China is an exception, because this largest developing country ranks fourth in the index. Brazil’s ranking is approximately 15th, which is the second-highest coun- try in the developing world. The results in Table 20 imply that the more developed a country’s economy, the higher its ranking in the global justice index. Figure  10 also presents the index of global justice (except for anti-poverty) in 2014. In Table  21, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, and other developed countries perform well in the global justice index except for climate change. The United States ranks the highest in the index. Among developing countries, 313 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 19 Country ranking in protection of women and children Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 China 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 United States of America 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Russian Federation 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 Mexico 7 6 5 5 5 3 3 4 Germany 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6 7 7 8 7 6 6 6 France 8 8 6 7 8 8 8 7 Italy 9 9 8 9 10 9 9 8 Spain 10 12 12 14 13 12 11 9 Argentina 11 10 10 11 11 11 10 10 Poland 16 15 15 16 15 14 12 11 Republic of Korea 12 11 9 12 12 13 13 12 Canada 14 14 13 15 14 15 15 13 Ukraine 19 19 17 20 16 16 16 14 Australia 17 17 16 17 19 18 18 15 Viet Nam 23 22 11 22 20 17 17 16 Brazil 139 140 20 10 9 10 14 17 Thailand 15 13 14 13 17 33 19 18 Netherlands 18 18 19 19 21 20 20 19 Saudi Arabia 60 54 45 24 29 23 27 20 Philippines 13 16 18 18 18 19 21 21 Sweden 26 24 23 23 22 21 22 22 Kazakhstan 31 30 26 27 25 22 26 23 Cuba 24 21 21 21 24 25 25 24 Belgium 27 25 24 25 23 24 24 25 Romania 35 41 38 35 35 31 31 26 Belarus 28 26 25 26 26 26 23 27 Syrian Arab Republic 70 37 35 28 28 28 29 28 Colombia 58 108 110 62 27 27 28 29 Czechia 29 28 28 31 30 29 32 30 Portugal 42 33 39 40 34 30 30 31 Israel 41 40 40 39 42 34 34 32 Dominican Republic 109 62 63 46 45 54 40 33 Austria 34 32 34 33 33 32 33 34 Finland 38 35 36 34 39 37 35 35 Norway 36 36 37 36 40 39 36 36 Denmark 37 38 42 41 43 41 37 37 Switzerland 39 39 41 42 41 40 39 38 Bulgaria 44 44 44 43 50 45 46 39 Peru 25 29 43 67 55 46 38 40 Serbia 52 55 49 52 46 44 45 41 Ireland 47 49 50 50 54 52 47 42 314 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 19 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Venezuela 40 27 27 30 31 38 61 43 Hungary 43 43 48 44 44 43 44 44 Chile 49 51 56 49 49 48 52 45 Tunisia 55 64 60 54 47 50 51 46 New Zealand 45 45 47 45 52 51 49 47 Slovakia 50 50 52 51 56 57 53 48 Bolivia 105 105 105 109 58 53 48 49 Malaysia 22 20 22 29 32 42 50 50 Costa Rica 46 47 51 48 57 58 54 51 Kyrgyzstan 51 53 57 57 59 60 57 52 Senegal 72 46 29 56 53 47 59 53 Lebanon 104 81 76 60 63 64 60 54 Ecuador 30 31 31 38 36 36 43 55 Kuwait 57 59 58 55 62 62 56 56 Uzbekistan 33 34 33 37 38 56 58 57 Republic of Moldova 54 56 59 58 60 59 62 58 Nicaragua 61 48 53 59 61 61 64 59 Lithuania 56 61 62 61 64 63 63 60 Tajikistan 59 63 67 63 65 65 65 61 Croatia 53 57 66 64 66 69 67 62 Slovenia 62 58 68 65 68 66 66 63 Rwanda 32 42 46 53 51 49 55 64 Uruguay 67 68 73 69 69 70 69 65 Panama 78 66 74 73 67 67 68 66 Greece 48 52 61 71 71 71 75 67 Qatar 64 69 69 66 70 73 71 68 Mongolia 77 74 72 70 74 74 72 69 Estonia 65 67 71 72 76 75 73 70 Latvia 66 65 70 68 73 72 70 71 Trinidad and Tobago 69 70 75 74 77 76 77 72 Albania 96 82 94 93 88 84 81 73 Georgia 73 76 85 81 81 78 76 74 Republic of North Macedonia 74 77 79 77 79 77 79 75 El Salvador 99 88 81 88 75 68 78 76 Cyprus 68 72 78 76 80 82 80 77 Mauritius 71 71 77 75 78 79 82 78 Iceland 75 78 82 82 86 83 83 79 Malta 80 79 86 83 85 85 85 80 Bahrain 79 73 80 78 83 81 84 81 Montenegro 83 80 83 84 87 87 87 82 Luxembourg 76 75 84 85 84 86 86 83 Suriname 86 84 89 87 90 88 89 84 315 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 19 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Armenia 101 101 102 105 105 102 98 85 Barbados 84 83 87 86 89 89 90 86 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 90 89 91 90 91 90 92 87 Samoa 88 87 92 92 92 91 91 88 Tonga 89 90 93 91 93 92 93 89 Brunei Darussalam NA NA NA NA NA NA 94 90 Cabo Verde 97 94 99 99 100 98 96 91 Belize 95 96 97 96 99 97 100 92 Vanuatu 91 91 95 94 95 95 97 93 Fiji 85 85 88 89 94 93 95 94 Sao Tome and Principe 93 93 96 95 97 96 99 95 Sri Lanka 81 104 65 79 82 100 104 96 Solomon Islands 94 95 98 97 102 101 101 97 Guyana 87 86 90 98 98 99 102 98 Maldives 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 99 Timor-Leste 100 100 100 101 101 103 103 100 Bhutan 92 98 103 103 106 105 106 101 Paraguay 106 103 107 80 104 94 107 102 Comoros 103 109 104 106 108 106 109 103 Djibouti 111 106 108 107 109 108 110 104 Honduras 63 60 64 100 96 80 108 105 Equatorial Guinea 108 107 109 108 110 110 111 106 Botswana 113 111 112 110 111 112 113 107 Azerbaijan 102 97 111 114 112 116 117 108 Oman 110 102 106 104 107 107 114 109 Eswatini 119 116 116 113 114 113 115 110 Namibia 114 112 115 116 115 111 112 111 Lesotho 115 114 114 112 113 114 116 112 Gambia 112 110 113 115 116 115 118 113 Cambodia 121 119 121 121 117 109 119 114 Congo 126 123 118 120 121 121 122 115 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 124 118 120 119 122 122 121 116 Mauritania 116 115 117 118 119 119 120 117 Algeria 136 131 55 47 48 55 74 118 Burundi 122 122 123 122 123 123 124 119 Guatemala 117 92 119 117 118 120 125 120 Nepal 21 23 30 111 120 117 123 121 Togo 127 126 126 123 125 124 127 122 Madagascar 128 127 125 126 126 126 128 123 Central African Republic 132 132 132 125 128 128 131 124 Malawi 125 125 124 127 130 129 132 125 Papua New Guinea 130 128 127 129 127 131 129 126 316 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 19 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Uganda 107 117 122 128 129 127 130 127 Sierra Leone NA 130 129 130 NA 133 133 128 Zambia 129 129 130 131 134 136 134 129 Turkey 141 135 133 134 131 130 136 130 United Republic of Tanzania 120 120 131 137 133 132 135 131 Benin 131 134 135 132 135 137 138 132 Iran 145 145 142 139 132 134 139 133 Morocco 137 133 134 133 136 138 140 134 Myanmar 133 137 136 136 139 135 137 135 Burkina Faso 138 138 140 138 137 140 143 136 Guinea 135 136 137 135 138 139 142 137 South Africa 142 141 139 142 140 142 141 138 Niger 143 142 141 140 141 143 144 139 Ghana 134 139 138 141 142 141 145 140 India 155 155 152 150 152 153 150 141 Mozambique 140 143 143 147 145 145 146 142 Cameroon 146 147 146 143 143 144 147 143 Bangladesh 20 NA NA NA NA NA NA 144 Chad 147 146 145 146 146 147 148 145 Mali 144 144 144 144 144 146 149 146 Ethiopia 151 150 149 152 151 151 151 147 Yemen 150 149 148 149 148 150 152 148 Kenya 148 148 147 148 147 149 153 149 Afghanistan 152 151 150 151 149 152 154 150 Indonesia 4 5 54 145 150 154 156 151 Egypt 153 153 151 153 153 156 155 152 Democratic Republic of the Congo 154 154 153 154 154 155 157 153 Pakistan 156 156 155 155 155 157 158 154 Nigeria 157 157 154 156 156 158 159 155 Japan NA NA NA 6 6 7 7 NA United Arab Emirates NA NA 32 32 37 35 41 NA Bahamas 82 NA NA NA NA NA 88 NA Liberia NA 124 NA NA 124 125 126 NA Democratic People’s Republic of Korea NA NA NA NA NA 118 NA NA Angola 149 152 NA NA NA 148 NA NA Turkmenistan NA NA NA NA 72 NA NA NA Zimbabwe NA NA 128 124 NA NA NA NA Eritrea 123 121 NA NA NA NA NA NA Gabon NA 113 NA NA NA NA NA NA Guinea-Bissau 118 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 317 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 China, Slovenia, and Mexico’s rankings are notable. China ranks fourth in the years of 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015. However, the problem is that we only have ranking results of approximately 40 countries from 2010 through 2017. Figure 11 also shows the index of global justice (except for climate change) in 2017. Table  22 shows the results of the global justice index without considering climate change and anti-poverty from 2010 to 2017. This table presents approximately 100 coun- tries’ ranking results. Once again, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, and France rank as the top five in the global justice index that excludes climate change and anti-poverty. China performs best in the developing world, followed by Rwanda, another developing country, in 2017. Other developing countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Nepal, and Cyprus rank in the top 20, as well. Figure 12 also shows the index of global justice (except for climate change and anti-poverty) in 2017. Table  23 presents the global justice index with nine issues areas covered. The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and France rank as the top five in the global justice index. China is the highest ranking developing country and the United States performs best in the index. Other developed countries that rank among the top 20 include Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Finland, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, and Luxembourg. In the developing world, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Slovenia, and Costa Rica have also done well in the index. We compare Tables  20, 21, 22, and 23, and observe that most countries’ rankings are consistent in these tables. For example, the United States always ranks first in these results. Similarly, China consistently ranks among the top of the developing countries. This Fig. 9 2017 index ranking of protection of women and children on a world map 318 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 20 Global Justice Index (except for anti-poverty) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 United States of America 1 1 1 1 1 United Kingdom of Great Brit- ain and Northern Ireland 3 3 3 2 2 Germany 2 2 2 3 3 China 7 5 5 5 4 France 4 4 4 4 5 Switzerland NA NA 6 6 6 Norway NA NA NA 7 7 Sweden 9 9 7 8 8 Italy 5 7 9 10 9 Finland 10 10 10 11 10 Canada 8 8 8 9 11 Denmark NA NA NA NA 12 Spain 6 6 11 12 13 Belgium NA NA NA NA 14 Japan NA NA NA 14 15 Brazil 12 12 12 15 16 Australia 11 11 13 13 17 Nepal 64 13 15 17 18 New Zealand NA NA NA 16 19 Ukraine 52 59 57 55 20 Luxembourg NA NA 14 NA 21 Ghana NA 73 18 23 22 Russian Federation 14 14 16 19 23 Ireland NA NA NA 18 24 Senegal 19 20 21 25 25 Portugal 13 15 17 24 26 Uruguay 15 16 23 20 27 India 68 40 NA 21 28 Iceland NA 22 19 22 29 Mexico 18 19 22 28 30 Slovenia 16 18 20 27 31 United Republic of Tanzania 26 28 39 32 32 Cambodia 33 33 32 33 33 Costa Rica NA 21 24 29 34 Cameroon NA 45 46 NA 35 Estonia 21 25 29 34 36 Togo 49 51 42 41 37 Latvia 25 29 26 30 38 Argentina 23 23 27 31 39 Chile 28 30 33 35 40 Guatemala 22 24 30 36 41 Hungary 32 32 35 40 42 319 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 20 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Peru 24 26 34 39 43 Cyprus 20 27 31 37 44 Indonesia 17 17 25 38 45 Ecuador 41 44 44 47 46 Lithuania 40 41 40 43 47 Benin 37 48 48 48 48 Albania 29 35 38 45 49 Poland NA NA NA 44 50 Bulgaria 36 43 43 46 51 Honduras NA NA NA 51 52 Malaysia 39 38 37 49 53 Sri Lanka 38 42 50 50 54 Croatia 30 46 49 53 55 Nicaragua 45 56 51 56 56 Romania 42 53 55 59 57 Philippines 31 36 41 54 58 Georgia 35 47 52 57 59 Serbia 48 58 59 64 60 Niger 57 62 61 65 61 Turkey NA NA 45 52 62 El Salvador NA 50 NA 61 63 Tajikistan 43 49 53 60 64 Pakistan 27 37 63 58 65 Colombia 44 55 56 63 66 Mauritius 46 57 60 67 67 Malta NA 60 62 62 68 Mongolia 62 70 69 69 69 Belarus 59 65 68 70 70 Azerbaijan 50 61 65 72 71 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) NA 63 66 73 72 Namibia 51 NA NA NA 73 Kyrgyzstan 55 64 70 74 74 Tunisia 54 67 71 76 75 Republic of Moldova 61 68 73 77 76 Kazakhstan 63 69 74 78 77 Saudi Arabia 56 34 67 26 78 Lebanon 58 66 72 79 79 Qatar NA NA NA 75 80 Republic of Korea 65 71 75 80 81 Bahrain NA 72 NA NA 82 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 69 75 76 82 83 Israel 34 52 47 42 NA Viet Nam 66 74 54 66 NA 320 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 comparison implies that our results are robust and scientific. Figure 13 also shows the index of global justice in 2014. 4 Conclusion This paper focuses on a measurement and operationalization of global justice that identifies, evaluates, and assesses the performance of nation states in conducting pro- jects and endeavors to promote justice at the global level. First, we briefly introduced our conceptualization of global justice and our development of the theoretical frame- work, which provides a basis for the subsequent measurement. Through the synthesis of three approaches—rights-based, goods-based, and virtue-based—embedded in the historical discussion of global justice, we proposed the principles of CBDR-RC and CDDR to further determine nine issue areas of crucial importance: climate change, peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, counter-terrorism, cross-national criminal police cooperation, anti-poverty, education, public health, and the protection of women and children. By collecting, processing, and normalizing the data, we generate ranks for each issue area and aggregate them to create the final index. Through various visu- alization tools, we provide a visual exhibition of the performance and contribution of each nation state in the areas of global justice, the regional comparisons, and the trends of change over time. Our result shows that the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and France rank as the top five in the global justice index. The United States undoubtedly ranks first in the index. China ranks the highest among developing countries. In gen- eral, developed countries have performed better than their counterparts in the develop- ing world. This finding implies that the more developed and wealthier a country, the higher its ranking. The contribution of this paper can be summarized as follows: (1) the global justice index is the first attempt to measure the performance and contribution of nation states to enhance justice at the global level; (2) the index presents a rich, comprehensive Table 20 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Mozambique NA NA 64 68 NA Zimbabwe NA NA 36 71 NA Uzbekistan NA NA NA 81 NA Paraguay NA NA 28 NA NA Kenya NA NA 58 NA NA Myanmar NA 31 NA NA NA Panama NA 39 NA NA NA Ethiopia 60 54 NA NA NA Congo 47 NA NA NA NA Bangladesh 53 NA NA NA NA Angola 67 NA NA NA NA 321 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 21 Global Justice Index (except for climate change) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 United States of America 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Germany 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 France 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 Sweden 8 9 9 10 9 8 8 5 Canada 7 8 8 7 10 10 6 6 Finland 9 10 11 12 12 13 11 7 Republic of Korea 34 43 46 43 46 15 10 8 Spain 6 7 10 11 13 14 9 9 Russian Federation 15 18 15 29 21 20 14 10 Brazil 11 11 13 13 19 17 15 11 Portugal 16 12 16 19 24 21 18 12 Mexico 19 14 17 17 20 22 12 13 Slovenia 17 16 27 21 29 25 24 14 Cyprus 36 NA NA NA 23 48 NA 15 Belarus 35 35 45 48 47 19 33 16 Indonesia 23 20 24 34 34 35 19 17 Latvia 25 22 22 25 28 31 22 18 Honduras NA NA NA 38 39 37 32 19 Serbia 10 38 23 24 43 45 13 20 Hungary 21 19 21 31 27 30 23 21 Peru 28 30 35 36 35 36 26 22 Georgia 24 32 42 41 45 43 28 23 Estonia 12 21 36 23 41 39 21 24 Lithuania 26 26 28 28 25 24 20 25 Argentina 30 28 18 20 22 32 17 26 Kyrgyzstan 20 41 33 35 50 33 37 27 Uruguay 27 27 20 15 38 23 25 28 Romania 22 23 31 30 36 40 30 29 El Salvador NA 31 NA 40 37 42 27 30 Colombia 31 40 44 39 48 46 35 31 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) NA 44 40 42 44 41 34 32 Republic of Moldova 33 42 38 45 52 38 31 33 Kazakhstan 32 45 39 46 30 28 16 34 Ukraine 37 34 34 44 17 11 36 35 Italy 5 6 6 9 8 7 5 NA Norway NA NA NA 6 7 6 7 NA Costa Rica NA 29 30 26 32 29 29 NA Iran (Islamic Republic of) NA NA NA NA 49 47 38 NA Malta NA 15 26 47 51 NA 39 NA China NA 4 4 5 4 4 NA NA Belgium NA NA NA NA 14 9 NA NA 322 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 picture of global justice that offers a guide to global justice for individuals who want to observe annual achievement and changes over time; (3) the index is a barometer for the international community to implement and monitor global justice in different issue areas, enabling international organizations and policymakers to target resources and design policies more effectively; and (4) the index can be used as an analytical tool to compare relevant global justice issues across nations and included as a dependent vari- able or independent variable in causal analysis. Notably, this study has several limitations: (1) based on the previous theoretical research, we used nine issues to measure global justice. We excluded refugees and other issues which might have also been highly related to global justice for various reasons. (2) Because no theoretical research has provided the weight of the nine issues to global justice, we, in practice, assume that the nine issues equally con- tribute to global justice. How to weight the nine issues is a subject for further theo- retical research. (3) Due to data limitations, we did not include all countries in this study. For some issues, such as poverty, climate change, and education, the prob- lem of missing values is more serious. Thus, in further research, we will continue to collect data to overcome this problem. (4) The results of this study only apply to comparisons between countries in each year because of the various numbers of countries each year. Regarding our conclusion, a comparison of the global justice index across years is inappropriate. Table 21 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Luxembourg NA NA 12 NA 15 12 NA NA Iceland NA 13 14 16 18 16 NA NA Ireland NA NA NA 14 16 18 NA NA Poland NA NA NA 22 26 26 NA NA Ecuador 29 36 37 37 40 27 NA NA Turkey NA NA 25 27 31 34 NA NA Croatia 18 33 29 33 33 44 NA NA Switzerland NA NA 7 8 6 NA NA NA Denmark NA NA NA NA 11 NA NA NA Bulgaria 13 24 32 32 42 NA NA NA Israel 14 17 19 18 NA NA NA NA Paraguay NA NA 41 NA NA NA NA NA Mongolia NA 39 43 NA NA NA NA NA Pakistan NA 25 NA NA NA NA NA NA Panama NA 37 NA NA NA NA NA NA 323 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 22 Global Justice Index (except for of both climate change and anti-poverty) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 United States of America 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Germany 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 China 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 France 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Sweden 10 10 9 10 9 8 9 6 Canada 8 8 8 8 10 9 7 7 Australia 9 9 10 11 12 12 10 8 Spain 7 7 11 13 16 14 11 9 Finland 11 11 12 12 13 11 14 10 Republic of Korea 81 89 90 97 97 15 13 11 Rwanda NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 12 Bangladesh 55 NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 New Zealand NA NA NA 19 22 18 21 14 Russian Federation 14 13 15 20 24 21 20 15 Brazil 12 12 14 17 18 19 17 16 Nepal 82 21 21 23 23 20 18 17 Cyprus 13 16 17 26 29 23 25 18 Senegal 24 26 25 30 26 24 19 19 Argentina 18 20 18 25 28 26 26 20 Mexico 16 17 19 27 25 22 22 21 Portugal 15 18 20 29 31 28 30 22 Ghana NA 90 29 33 30 30 24 23 Burkina Faso 57 49 58 48 38 36 23 24 Indonesia 21 22 27 41 54 40 29 25 Chile 25 27 26 32 36 33 32 26 Slovenia 22 28 30 35 39 35 39 27 Qatar 17 23 22 24 32 25 37 28 Uruguay 20 19 24 22 34 32 33 29 Estonia 29 37 38 44 45 41 42 30 Togo 52 57 51 42 35 38 31 31 Hungary 31 30 35 43 47 44 44 32 Malaysia 28 31 31 38 44 48 41 33 Barbados 83 91 91 98 46 39 45 34 Mongolia 44 61 42 39 41 46 36 35 Latvia 27 32 34 36 42 43 48 36 United Republic of Tanzania 54 56 73 47 40 52 34 37 Cambodia 51 50 49 56 48 45 35 38 Ukraine 48 47 41 40 19 29 40 39 Lithuania 32 35 36 45 50 47 50 40 Mauritius 40 46 54 60 58 53 52 41 Oman NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 42 324 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 22 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Mauritania 58 66 74 79 79 77 43 43 Serbia 41 45 52 58 60 55 49 44 Cuba 60 72 77 66 71 60 61 45 Bulgaria 38 41 50 57 63 58 56 46 Peru 36 38 43 55 62 59 51 47 Azerbaijan 30 34 39 53 53 51 53 48 Benin 35 42 46 46 49 50 38 49 Tunisia 37 52 57 65 68 61 57 50 Kazakhstan 42 44 44 51 61 57 59 51 Guatemala 39 39 48 61 64 62 58 52 Belarus 53 59 64 64 67 66 62 53 Romania 47 58 65 70 72 67 64 54 Cameroon NA 84 83 NA 51 NA 55 55 Albania 45 53 59 67 69 68 60 56 Lebanon 43 51 61 76 84 73 68 57 Honduras NA NA NA 69 73 70 65 58 Croatia 33 43 55 63 70 64 74 59 Republic of Moldova 50 60 60 68 75 72 71 60 Georgia 56 62 67 71 76 78 72 61 El Salvador NA 63 NA 73 77 75 69 62 Bahrain NA 69 72 74 83 69 73 63 Guinea 74 82 85 83 88 83 66 64 Burundi 89 NA NA NA NA 71 63 65 Nicaragua 61 70 70 72 78 79 75 66 Niger 66 68 62 62 56 63 47 67 Sri Lanka 62 65 69 75 74 74 76 68 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 63 64 71 78 81 81 78 69 Philippines 34 36 47 59 66 80 77 70 Tajikistan 59 67 76 77 80 82 79 71 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 67 80 63 84 82 87 80 72 Belize 71 81 81 86 90 84 84 73 Lesotho 69 76 80 82 87 89 83 74 Kyrgyzstan 70 77 79 81 85 86 82 75 Maldives 87 94 95 93 96 94 87 76 Colombia 72 83 86 88 93 91 90 77 Uzbekistan NA NA NA 85 89 90 85 78 Pakistan 23 29 68 52 65 65 54 79 Bolivia NA 85 87 90 92 92 91 80 Mali 65 75 37 49 52 56 88 81 Gambia 73 79 82 87 91 93 89 82 Myanmar NA 74 NA NA NA NA NA 83 Sao Tome and Principe NA 78 88 91 94 95 92 84 325 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 22 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 84 92 92 99 99 96 94 85 Bhutan 90 96 96 102 100 98 95 86 Italy 5 6 7 9 7 7 6 NA Norway NA NA NA 6 6 6 8 NA India 86 33 NA 21 27 27 15 NA Japan NA NA NA 14 15 NA 16 NA Singapore NA NA NA NA NA NA 27 NA Malta NA 25 28 31 33 31 28 NA Costa Rica NA 40 40 50 57 42 46 NA Sierra Leone NA NA 93 101 NA 76 67 NA Chad 77 88 NA 89 NA 88 70 NA Liberia NA NA NA NA 86 85 81 NA Central African Republic 46 48 66 NA NA NA 86 NA Fiji 88 95 94 100 98 97 93 NA Belgium NA NA NA NA 14 10 NA NA Luxembourg NA NA 13 NA 17 13 NA NA Iceland NA 15 16 18 21 16 NA NA Ireland NA NA NA 15 20 17 NA NA Poland NA NA NA 34 37 34 NA NA South Africa NA NA NA NA NA 37 NA NA Turkey NA NA 32 37 43 49 NA NA Ecuador 49 54 56 54 55 54 NA NA Switzerland NA NA 6 7 8 NA NA NA Denmark NA NA NA NA 11 NA NA NA Saudi Arabia 26 14 33 16 59 NA NA NA Namibia 68 NA NA NA 95 NA NA NA Israel 19 24 23 28 NA NA NA NA Viet Nam 85 93 78 80 NA NA NA NA Zimbabwe NA NA 53 92 NA NA NA NA Comoros NA NA NA 94 NA NA NA NA Uganda 78 87 NA 95 NA NA NA NA Mozambique NA NA 89 96 NA NA NA NA Paraguay NA NA 45 NA NA NA NA NA Guyana 64 71 75 NA NA NA NA NA Kenya NA NA 84 NA NA NA NA NA Panama NA 55 NA NA NA NA NA NA Ethiopia 80 73 NA NA NA NA NA NA Timor-Leste 76 86 NA NA NA NA NA NA Guinea-Bissau 75 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Congo 79 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Solomon Islands 91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Angola 92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 326 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Table 23 Global Justice Index (all nine issues) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 United States of America 1 1 1 1 1 United Kingdom of Great Brit- ain and Northern Ireland 2 2 3 2 2 Germany 3 3 2 3 3 China NA 5 5 9 4 France 4 4 4 4 5 Switzerland NA NA 6 7 6 Norway NA NA NA 6 7 Sweden 8 9 7 5 8 Italy 5 8 9 10 9 Finland 9 10 10 12 10 Canada 7 7 8 8 11 Denmark NA NA NA NA 12 Spain 6 6 11 11 13 Belgium NA NA NA NA 14 Brazil 10 11 12 13 15 Ireland NA NA NA 17 16 Luxembourg NA NA 13 NA 17 Ukraine 37 37 38 44 18 Russian Federation 15 20 14 31 19 Mexico 24 15 17 20 20 Iceland NA 21 16 21 21 Slovenia 14 13 19 16 22 Portugal 16 12 15 15 23 Latvia 25 18 18 22 24 Costa Rica NA 17 22 19 25 Argentina 31 32 23 23 26 Hungary 21 19 21 29 27 Lithuania 28 26 26 28 28 Cyprus 36 NA NA NA 29 Poland NA NA NA 25 30 Croatia 17 33 29 33 31 Peru 27 25 27 30 32 Estonia 11 14 25 18 33 Uruguay 26 24 20 14 34 Indonesia 18 16 24 34 35 Romania 20 22 33 27 36 Honduras NA NA NA 36 37 El Salvador NA 28 NA 41 38 Turkey NA NA 32 35 39 Ecuador 30 34 35 38 40 Bulgaria 13 23 34 32 41 Colombia 29 35 36 39 42 327 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Table 23 (continued) Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Georgia 19 31 39 40 43 Serbia 12 41 28 24 44 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) NA 42 40 42 45 Kazakhstan 34 45 44 46 46 Republic of Korea 32 40 43 43 47 Belarus 35 38 46 47 48 Kyrgyzstan 23 39 37 37 49 Iran (Islamic Republic of) NA NA NA NA 50 Malta NA 29 41 48 51 Republic of Moldova 33 44 42 45 52 Israel 22 30 31 26 NA Paraguay NA NA 30 NA NA Mongolia NA 43 45 NA NA Pakistan NA 27 NA NA NA Panama NA 36 NA NA NA Fig. 10 2014 index ranking of global justice (except for anti-poverty) on a world map 328 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Fig. 11 2017 index ranking of global justice (except for climate change) on a world map Fig. 12 2017 index ranking of global justice (except for both climate change and poverty) on a world map 329 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Acknowledgements The Fudan IAS acknowledges the generous support which it has received from institu- tions 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 Mans- bridge (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 Cli- mate Fund, and Milorad Kovacevic, Chief of Statistics, UN Human Development Report Office. This is a group project of Fudan IAS. All members of the group named as authors contributed equally to the study and ranked alphabetically. We want to thank our research assistants for their time and important contribu- tions in data collection and aggregation: Jingpu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Ziheng Guo, Xiaoyuan Li, Yawen Lin, Muye Nanshan, Zhenyu Wang, Xiaolan Xia, and Yuqing Zhang. We also thank Xi Lin for his coordination throughout the project, as well as other Fudan IAS fellows, Su Gu, Qingping Liu, and Guodong Sun, for their active participation in and valuable contributions to our ongoing interactive discussions from their dif- ferent perspectives, expertise, and knowledge. Finally, we also owe our thanks to the three anonymous peer reviewers for their valuable comments and constructive criticism. All errors remain ours. Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of inter- est. Authors have no financial or personal relationship with a third party whose interests could be positively or negatively influenced by the article’s content. Fig. 13 2014 index ranking of global justice on a world map 330 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 1 3 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/ References Arneson, R. 1989. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Springer 56 (1): 77–93. Freeman, S. 2006. Book Review—Frontiers of Justice: The Capabilities Approach versus Contractarianism. Texas Law Review 85 (2): 385–430. Guo, S., et  al. 2019. Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 12 (4): 511–546. Mo, D. 2003. Mozi: Basic Writings. Translated by B. Watson. New York: Columbia University Press. Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M. 2011. Capabilities, Entitlements, Rights: Supplementation and Critique. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12 (1): 23–37. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Richardson, H.S. 2006. Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled. The Journal of Ethics. Springer 10 (4): 419–462. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). http://www.un.org/en/unive rsal-decla ratio n-human -right s/ index .html. Yanfeng Gu (Ph.D. in Social Sciences) is a lecturer and research fellow at the Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (IAS-Fudan). He received his Ph.D. degree in social sciences at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His primary fields are development economics, economic history, political economy, public administration, and social policy. His research interests include market integration, culture, social trust, and migration. His work has appeared in Chinese Sociological Review, Journal of Chi- nese Political Science, Sociological Study (in Chinese), and other leading journals in area studies. Xuan Qin (Ph.D. degree in political science) is a lecturer and research fellow at the Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (IAS-Fudan). She received her Ph.D. from the Nanyang Technologi- cal University (NTU Singapore). She is also a research assistant in the program of Participedia, which is developed by Archon Fung (Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) and Mark E. Warren (Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia). Her current research interests include democratic theory, statistical analysis, and data visualization. She has published several articles in SSCI and CSSCI journals. She currently serves as an editor for the Chinese Political Science Review. Zhongyuan Wang (Ph.D. in Political Science and China Studies) is a lecturer and research fellow at the Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (IAS-Fudan). He received his doctoral degree from Leiden University (The Netherlands) and was a lecturer in the Program of International Studies at Leiden University. His research interests include comparative political institutions, election studies, political rep- resentation, local politics and governance, European politics, and governmental big data. His work has appeared in European Political Science, China Information, and the Journal of Contemporary China. He currently serves as an editor for the Journal of Chinese Political Science. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html 331 1 3 Chinese Political Science Review (2020) 5:253–331 Chunman Zhang (Ph.D. degree in political science) is a senior lecturer and research fellow at the Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (IAS-Fudan). He received his doctoral degree from the Johns Hopkins University. His research interests are comparative politics, party politics, environmental gov- ernance, and international relations. He has published over 25 academic papers in both English and Chinese leading journals, such as Environmental Politics, Land Use Policy, Journal of Chinese Political Science, and many other top CSSCI journals. He serves as an editor for Journal of Chinese Political Science. Sujian Guo (Ph.D. degree in political science), an honorary professor of the Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences; Principal Investigator of Fudan IAS Global Justice Index, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for US–China Policy Studies at San Francisco State University; former president of Association of Chinese Political Studies; Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Chinese Political Science, the Journal of Chinese Governance, the Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Chinese Political Science Review; Editor-in-Chief of Rowman & Littlefield-Lexington’s book series “Challenges Facing Chinese Political Development,” and Editor-in-Chief of Shanghai People’s Press book series of “China in Transition.” His research areas include comparative politics and Chinese politics, com- parative political economy, Sino-US relations, sustainable energy and environment, democratic transition, and economic transition. He has published more than 60 academic articles, and authored and edited over 35 books, including Palgrave Handbook on Local Governance in Contemporary China, Governance in Tran- sitional China; Political Science and Chinese Political Studies—The State of Field, The Political Economy of China’s Great Transformation; Global Sustainable Energy Competitiveness Report; Democratic Transi- tions: Modes and Outcomes; Chinese Politics and Government: Power, Ideology and Organization; The Political Economy of Asian Transition from Communism; Post-Mao China, among others. Global Justice Index Report Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Methodology: Construction of the Global Justice Index 2.1 First Step: Convert Indicator Indices 2.2 Second Step: Population-Based Weighting 2.3 Third Step: Calculate the Scores of Both Dimension Indices and Category Indices 2.4 Fourth Step: Calculate the Score of the Issue Index 2.5 Last Step: Calculate Global Justice Index 3 Findings 3.1 Issue 1: Climate Change 3.1.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.1.2 Results 3.2 Issue 2: Peacekeeping 3.3 Dimensions and Indicators 3.3.1 Results 3.4 Issue 3: Humanitarian Aid 3.4.1 Indicators 3.4.2 Results 3.5 Issue 4: Terrorism and Armed Conflicts 3.5.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.5.2 Results 3.6 Issue 5: Cross-National Criminal Police Cooperation 3.6.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.7 Issue 6: Anti-poverty 3.7.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.7.2 Results 3.8 Issue 7: Education 3.8.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.8.2 Results 3.9 Issue 8: Public Health 3.9.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.9.2 Results 3.10 Issue 9: Protection of Women and Children 3.10.1 Dimensions and Indicators 3.10.2 Results 3.11 Global Justice Index: Our Main Results 4 Conclusion Acknowledgements References