It is argued that global justice theories have the manifest goal of universalizing the postulates of liberalism by conceptualizing the world as one political entity. Darrel Moellandorf has reasoned that if we can support justice within the borders of a nation-state, the same reason applies for supporting the justice globally. In 1972, the philosopher Peter Singer published his main arguments about global aspects of morality, interwind with justice, in an influential essay 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'. He reflected that suffering and death due to starvation, lack of basic health and medical facilities or shelter are simply bad. If the people of affluent West have capacity to prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable importance, they are morally obliged to do that. The need of strangers, that is, people of other than our own fellow citizens or neighbours is equally morally compelling. In a subsequent book entitled 'One World'. Singer took the argument further and said that world is interrelated and intertwined therefore, we need a transborder ethical or global understanding of justice. Thomas Nagel adding to the debate says that the least controversial claims we could make in international political theory is that we do not live in a just world. There may be plenty of space for disagreement about the most effective methods to deal with problems of global poverty, starvation. malnutrition and death due to associated reasons; but, some form of humane assistance from the well-of to those in dire needs is clearly called for, apart from any demand of justice, if we are not ethical egoists. The debate on global justice has been taking rounds on academic and intellectual platforms for almost three decades and commands a great deal of attention.