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) • Review
All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes by Daniel Drezner
At a time when many international relations scholars are qualifying their premature predictions of the withering of the state, Daniel Drezner's new book makes a ...
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Essay
Reading Tariq Ramadan: Political Liberalism, Islam, and "Overlapping Consensus"
"Much of the disagreement and controversy over Ramadan's significance arguably stems not from a disagreement over what he is on record as having asserted or ...