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
![](https://cdn.carnegiecouncil.org/media/eia/_900x525_crop_center-center_none_ns/Promoting-the-Rule-of-Law-Abroad-In-Search-of-Knowledge.jpg?v=1721256303)
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Review
Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge, edited by Thomas Carothers
This book is an attempt to collect some of the little known about Rule-of-law (ROL) reform, and it does this creditably. Although the book's contributors ...
Winter 2007 (21.4) • Essay
American Religious NGOs in North Korea: A Paradoxical Relationship
Despite North Korea's antipathy to outside religious influence, it is primarily American NGOs with financial backing from religious organizations that have maintained development and exchange ...
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 ...