The aim of the paper is to attempt to answer whether impartiality is the basis of global justice, and if so, what type of impartiality should be considered: closed impartiality (Rawls) or open impartiality (Sen). The problem is analysed by comparing the conception of impartiality put forward by Rawls (the ‘veil of ignorance’) with the conception approved by Sen (the impartial spectator), followed by pointing out the reasons (arguments) why Sen chooses to prefer open impartiality based on the model of impartial spectator rather than the impartiality stemming from the contractarian tradition. The analyses lead to the conclusion that both conceptions of impartiality are equally closed or no less open, and in Sen’s case the actual basis of global justice are the idea of human rights and the pluralist conception of personal identity.