In order to examine the inconsistencies of justice witnessed in our globalized world, this study begins with two famous “cases of exception” to international justice—Guantanamo Bay’s detention center and the question of Palestine. A review of the literature on “states of exception” throughout the history of ideas, and an investigation of the history of capitalism since the emergence of imperialism reveals that today’s world, which has become globalized and unified in many respects, has seen so many exceptions that the “exception” has become as effective as the “rule”. The entire world is now ruled by exceptions that present themselves as “temporary,” which is a long-term strategy that aims to gradually change laws and create lasting effects. This study argues that discourse on “the state of exception” in the field of justice imposes exceptions on language and rhetoric, ultimately causing even the division papers into a specific structure, such as using paragraphs to separate ideas. Such a structure stems from the belief that narration is more likely than causal arguments to expose the failures and “embarrassments” of justice and the existing “juridical gaps” even though argumentation is the most fitting method to approach other questions of rights and politics.