Abstract
This paper presents objections to the critique of cosmopolitanism made by Rawls and Nagel who defend a concept of justice in which justice and sovereignty are closely related. The first part presents Rawls’s rhetorical strategy which is opposed to the cosmopolitan idea of transforming the international order based on the demands of global economic justice. The second part covers Nagel’s position which is opposed to the idea of global justice. The final section introduces Christina Lafont’s presentation of a model of international policy that is geared toward justice in a global context.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
