Winter 2007 (21.4) Feature

States of Risk: Should Cosmopolitans Favor Their Compatriots?

Recent cosmopolitan thinking attempts to find a place for local (including national) attachment, but all of the proposals offered have been exposed to telling critique. There are objections to the claim that local obligations are only instances of cosmopolitan duty, and to the claim that we can give a moral justification to national societies as networks of mutual benefit.

This article claims that it is not mutual benefit but mutual risk that grounds compatriot preference. While exposure to coercion as such does not track national boundaries, exposure to the risks of state abuse, political choice, and social conformity provide us with a reason to take our compatriots' interests seriously. The same argument, however, displays the limits of this reasoning, and also grounds a demanding obligation to aid other societies.

To read or purchase the full text of this article, click here.

More in this issue

Winter 2007 (21.4) Review

The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers by Ngaire Woods

Woods is an insightful and thoughtful authority on the Bretton Woods institutions. In this book she examines their activities and focuses on their engagements with ...

Winter 2007 (21.4) Feature

Human Rights Versus Emissions Rights: Climate Justice and the Equitable Distribution of Ecological Space

Arguing that issues of both emissions and subsistence should be comprehended within a single framework of justice, the proposal here is that this broader framework ...

Winter 2007 (21.4) Review Essay

The Rules of War [Full Text]

These three books show how the enduring principles of just war theory can be applied insightfully and fruitfully to even the latest kinds of conflict, ...