Natural justice is an art term that refers to specific procedural rights in the English legal system and other nations` systems based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of due process and due process, the latter having roots that correspond to some extent to the origins of natural justice.  Since its inception, American political thought has always emphasized justice. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that one of its primary purposes is “to establish justice.” The founding father, James Madison, wrote in the Federalist Papers in 1788 that justice should be the goal of all governments and civil society as a whole, that people are willing to risk even freedom in their quest. American schoolchildren are asked to memorize and recite an oath of allegiance that ends with the words “with liberty and justice for all.” Justice is therefore an enduring American ideal. We will now examine how one of America`s greatest philosophers, John Rawls, approaches this ideal. It should be noted that he placed more emphasis on equality than most of his European predecessors – perhaps reflecting the American Declaration of Independence`s belief that “all men are created equal.” (This greater emphasis may reflect Marx`s influence, which he occasionally mentions.) After examining Rawls` impressive contributions to the theory of justice and some of its applications, we will conclude this review with a brief treatment of some post-Rawlsian alternatives. An important emphasis that distinguishes this section from previous ones is the effort to arrive at a conception of justice that strikes a reasonable balance between freedom and equality. Critically, his general theory of justice is now quite familiar, a sort of mixture of Aristotle and Augustine, and marked by the same errors as theirs. Its application of the theory can be seen as an indication of its problematic nature: (a) Given the assumption of a right to private property, its analysis of the injustices of theft and robbery seems quite reasonable; (b) assuming that we have the right of self-defence, so does his analysis of the legitimacy of murder in a just war; (c) his attempt to defend to death the persecution of religious heretics arouses in him the suspicion of dogmatic and intolerant fanaticism; and (d) its acceptance of slavery and the political and economic subjugation of women as just is indicative of an empirical orientation that accepts the status quo too uncritically.
Again, the Christian belief that all human beings are personal creatures of a loving God is undermined by insufficient commitment to the implications of this for socio-political equality, so that only certain people are fully respected as free and rational actors. The rationalist theories of Plato and Augustine and the classical empirical theories of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas give us hope that there may be better alternatives. In Ridge v. Baldwin, Lord Reid took a close look at the authorities and tackled the root of the problem by showing how the term “justice” had been misinterpreted by requiring an additional characteristic beyond the characteristic that power interfered with a person`s rights. In his view, the mere fact that the power affects rights or interests is what makes it “judicial” and therefore subject to the procedures required by natural justice. : 413–5  It is believed that this removal of the previous misunderstanding about the importance of justice gave the judiciary the flexibility it needed to intervene in judicial review cases.  Public confidence as the basis of the rule against bias is also reflected in the oft-quoted words of Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, that “it is not only of some importance, but also fundamental that justice should not only be done, but demonstrably regarded as done.”  The third and final inadequate account presented here is that of the sophist Thrasymachus. He roars in the discussion, expresses contempt for all the poppies that have been produced so far, and boldly asserts that justice is relative to what is beneficial to the strongest (what we sometimes call the theory of “power makes law”). But who are the “strongest” people? Thrasymachus cannot mean stronger physically, for then inferior people would be superior to finer people like them. He clarifies his idea that he is referring to politically powerful people in leadership positions. But then, even the strongest leaders sometimes get it wrong about what is for their own benefit, which raises the question of whether people should do what leaders think is their own advantage, or just what actually is.
(If Thrasymachus had framed this in relation to what serves the interests of society itself, the same distinction between appearance and reality would apply.) But more than that, Socrates rejects the management`s model of exploitation, which sees political superiors as an appropriate exploitation of subordinates (Thrasymachus uses the example of a shepherd fattening and protecting his flock of sheep for his own selfish advantage), and replaces a service model in his place (his example is the good doctor who ply his trade primarily for the benefit of patients). So, if such a thing is to be accepted as our model for interpersonal relationships, then Thrasymachus accepts the “injustice” of self-interest as being better than serving the interests of others in the name of “justice.” Now, how are we to interpret whether the life of justice or the life of injustice is better? Socrates proposes three criteria for judging: what is the wisest, safest and happiest way of life; He argues that living simply is better on all three counts. Thus, at the end of the first book, it appears that Socrates trampled underfoot these three flawed conceptions of justice, although he himself claims to be dissatisfied because we have only shown what justice is not, without convincing presentation of its real nature (ibid., pp. 14-21, 25-31; 338c-345b, 349c-354c). Similarly, in Gorgia`s Callicles, Plato argues that, whatever conventions seem to dictate, natural justice dictates that superior people must rule over inferior people and obtain greater benefits than inferior people, whom society artificially levels people with a bias for equality. Socrates is then led to criticize this theory by analyzing what kind of superiority would be relevant, and then arguing that Callicles falsely advocates injustice, a false value, rather than the real value of true justice (Gorgias, pp. 52-66; 482d-493c; see also Laws, pp. 100-101, 172; 663, 714 for another articulation of something like Thrasymachus` position).
Natural justice allows a person to exercise his or her right to reasonable notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, as well as detailed notice of the matter to be satisfied.  This information gives the individual sufficient time to effectively prepare his or her own case and respond to the complaint against him. In Cooper v. Wandsworth, Chief Justice William Erle went so far as to state that Cooper`s failure to give notice and hear could be described as a form of abuse, since he had been treated as if he had played no role.  As Lord Mustill stated in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Doody (1993): “Since the person concerned cannot usually make valid submissions without knowing what factors may weigh against his or her interests, fairness will very often require that he or she be informed of the substance of the case to be answered.  : 582 Plato`s Magisterial Republic (to which we have already referred) is obviously a careful analysis of justice, although the book is much broader than suggests.
Socrates, Plato`s teacher and the main speaker in the dialogue, is critically involved from the beginning of a discussion with three interlocutors. Socrates provokes Cephalus to say something that he makes believe that justice simply boils down to always telling the truth and paying off his debts. Socrates easily refutes this simplistic view with the effective logical technique of a counterexample: if a friend lends you weapons when he is healthy, but then wants them to do great damage with them because he has gone mad, you should certainly not return them at that time and even lie to him if necessary to avoid great damage.