The immense inequalities between the world’s poor and the world’s rich have compelledphilosopher Thomas Pogge to develop a moral framework based on the Universal Declarationof Human Rights that challenges our most commonsense political moral views. Poggedisputes minimally and universally that we all have a negative duty not to harm so long as theharm is foreseeable and avoidable, rather than a positive duty to do well. Furthermore Poggeargues for an institutional view of negative duties flown from the fact that we all shape,uphold and impose institutions.With the help of three philosophers; Polly Vizard, Tim Hayward and Mathias Risse, Idebate a number of their raised objections to Thomas Pogge’s theory of institutional globaljustice which all focus on the controversial causal claim that the present global order causesglobal poverty. The objections discussed are (a) Vizard’s scrutinizing of Pogge’s notion ofresponsibility (b) Hayward’s call for a full causal account of how the global order is harmingthe poor and (c) Risse’s alternative baseline for harm. I argue that although Pogge has somepotential problems, he nevertheless is not contradicted by these objections to the extent thatthey themselves claim. I hold that the debated criticism appeals for further investigation andthat in light of the arguments in this thesis we have a negative duty not to harm and a positiveobligation to reform global unjust institutions in responding to global poverty.