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) Essay

Expanding Europe: The Ethics of EU-Turkey Relations

The possible future EU membership of Turkey has become one of the most hotly debated topics both in the EU and within Turkey itself. Underlying ...

Winter 2007 (21.4) Review

Does Foreign Aid Really Work? by Roger C. Riddell & Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics by Carol Lancaster

These two recent works by Roger C. Riddell and Carol Lancaster display a sober understanding of aid challenges, present a balanced view of the context ...

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 ...