Despite being sympathetic to the aim of Martijn Hesselink’s paper to explore how private law might be used to tackle gross inequalities, it is argued that private law is based fundamentally on the moral principles of interpersonal justice, which being a kind of partial justice as explained by Thomas Nagel are distinct and often opposed to the impartial standards of justice used in theories of social justice. European private law either has to abandon the principles of interpersonal justice in favour of a goal-oriented regulation or alternatively a richer conception of interpersonal justice may be developed that may assist to a limited extent the pursuit of greater equality.

Katharina Pistor’s recent work has revealed a deep justice deficit in private law, raising fundamental questions about how it could be reduced. While Pistor favours piecemeal bottom-up solutions to instances of injustice, Martijn Hesselink proposes a more radical top-down strategy – the adoption of a progressive European code of private law. This article explores the top-down and bottom-up pathways to justice in private law, focussing on the role of interpersonal justice as justice between substantively free and equal persons in European private law. It shows that although concerns about a balance of the competing interests of private parties pervade many of its areas, they do not take central stage in European private law. The substantive private autonomy embodied in national private law systems, the regulated private autonomy enshrined in EU secondary private law and the unregulated private autonomy with an interstate element underpinning EU free movement law sit uneasily together. It is argued that in order to enhance the role of interpersonal justice in the internal market and develop a more coherent European private law, the current bottom-up pathway thereto could be complemented by a more top-down roadmap towards the EU principles of private law justice.

Katharina Pistor’s powerful critique of the key role that private law plays in creating private wealth, producing inequalities, and undermining democracy, raises the urgent question of what could be done to set things right or, at least, could be a step in the right direction. This article argues that a progressive European code of private law could be a meaningful part of the solution. A progressive private law code would be a code aimed at making progress towards a more just society, where there is less inequality and where we have more democratic control over our future. The progressive EPL-code would be completely different, in crucial respects, from the civil codes of the member states. It would be European (not national), be mandatory (not optional), have ‘constitutional’ ie primary EU law status (not merely secondary), consist of fundamental principles (not detailed rules), prioritise justice (not economic growth), and be radically democratic (not technocratic).

This study examines the effect of supervisors’ Confucian values on interpersonal trust, interpersonal justice, and information sharing in the context of South Korean workers, using multilevel analysis. We also investigate the moderating roles of blood, regional, and school ties (BRST) among their relationships. A survey was conducted with 46 supervisors and 210 subordinates from South Korean manufacturing companies. Our empirical findings indicated that supervisors’ Confucian values were positively associated with the interpersonal trust, interpersonal justice, and information sharing of subordinates. Contrary to our expectation, the BRST had no significant moderating role in the relationship between supervisors’ Confucian values and interpersonal trust, interpersonal justice, and information sharing of subordinates. Our study contributes to organisational behaviour and psychology by highlighting the significance of societal values such as Confucian values in understanding an organisational member's attitude and behaviour in the East Asian region.