Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1a) International Disparities
1b) The Debate
1c) Purpose of This Dissertation
1e) Terms Used
Chapter 2: The Cosmopolitan Argument
2a) What Cosmopolitans Think
2b) Ought Nationalist Exclusive Bonds Be Shelved
2b)i) Charitable Aid
2c) Nationalist Neutrality
2d) Organizations’ Reasonableness
Chapter 3: The Liberal Nationalist Argument
3a) General Outline
3b) International Poverty
3c) National Vs. Individual Concern
3d) Factors to Consider
3e) National Vs. International Concern
3f) The Nation
3g) Charitable Obligations
Chapter 4: The Middle Ground
4a) General Outline
4b) National Autonomy
4d) Extending Obligations
4e) Exclusive Ties and Ethics
4f) Section Summary
Chapter 5: Conclusion
In the face of international poverty, it has long been contested as to what each country's responsibilities are in the pursuit of international justice. On one side are the nationalists, and on the other, cosmopolitans. Cosmopolitans argue that the kind of bonds which engender national unity should be extended on to the international front as it is these bonds which ensure that true international justice is obtained. However nationalists maintain that in the practical world there are no significant incentives for international justice because nearly all social bonds are limited to national borders, with the only exception being compassionate help given in the face of a catastrophe. Furthermore nationalists advocate that all countries have an ethical responsibility to value each country's different traditional beliefs which are usually expressed in the specific rules and regulations they follow. Nationalists maintain that the responsibility to uphold the respect for each country's beliefs is so important that every country should be allowed to confront the results of their own decisions, even if those decisions cause severe destitution in their respective countries. Cosmopolitans acquiesce with nationalists as far as each country's duty to value another's national sovereignty and allowing them to tackle the effects of their own decision-making go, but insist that the framework within which national sovereignty is implemented, must be impartial and equitable. Hence prior to the exercising of respect for each country's beliefs, the international economic system that hinders the implementation of national sovereignty must be relieved of its meddling tendencies which constrain a country's range of options. A further requirement is that those particular beliefs which are detrimental to the individual and can cause impoverishment must be amended. Cosmopolitans in effect, maintain that the way nationalism is understood should be modified and the individual should be the central point of analysis and ethical interest. Moreover they consider that although there is a high deficiency in international unity, this issue can be sorted out by searching for, as well as executing, international justice in the practical world. Additionally this does not nullify the ethical significance of cosmopolitan values of justice.
Chapter One: Introduction
1a) International Disparities
International impoverishment is ever-increasing. About fifty per cent of the global population today survives on less than two dollars per day (Altman and Wellman 2009; 15). Consequently these people are unable to command even the most basic necessities like food, clean water or shelter to ensure their subsistence, which in turn loots them of the prospects of ever fulfilling their desires (Altman and Wellman 2009; 15). For example when analysing infant mortality, the number of children who die around the time of childbirth is twenty times higher in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa than in the developed rich industrial countries (BBC 2011:http://www.stwr.org/poverty-inequality/statistics-world-inequality.html). Also according to the World Bank Study of 2002, the richest fifty million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (BBC 2011; http://www.stwr.org/poverty-inequality/key-facts.html). Furthermore in the 1998 Study on “Consumption for Human Development”, it was found that twenty per cent of the population in developed countries consumed eighty-six per cent of the world's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (BBC 2011; http://www.stwr.org/poverty-inequality/key-facts.html). And as far as income distribution between countries is concerned, twenty per cent of the world's population in the richest countries had thirty times the income of the poorest twenty per cent in 1960, compared to seventy-four times as much in 1997 (BBC 2011; http://www.stwr.org/poverty-inequality/key-facts.html). These statistics prove how severe the disparities between the wealthy and poor countries truly are and this unavoidably gives rise to moral concerns. It is important to ponder and debate over what can be done to put an end to such a situation. Because the current level of international disparities are ethically objectionable, most wealthy countries have taken initiatives to tackle the issue (Cramme and Diamond 2009; 43). Some of these include the writing-off of debts owed by impoverished countries to the wealthy ones and raising the amount of aid given to impoverished countries (Cramme and Diamond 2009; 43). In a very limited number of cases, some wealthy countries have even permitted heightened immigration from poor countries under the status of refugees, for example, Italy has recently started allowing Somalis to enter the country so long as they have documented proof that they have been affected by the ongoing piracy and terrorist attacks within Somalia (Carmody, Garcia and Linarelli 2012; 231-233). However till date, most of these actions have been conducted with a philanthropic mindset (Cramme and Diamond 2009; 46). The question to ask then is that with regard to the huge international disparities that exist, do these rich nations have moral obligations towards people who reside in, and are citizens of, the poor countries, and if so, what is the magnitude of obligations owed to them? This forms the foundation for the debate between nationalists and cosmopolitans.
1b) The Debate
Actions by the wealthy countries, such as the writing-off of debts and intensifying amounts of aid given demonstrate that international inequality has become a grave ethical concern (Cramme and Diamond 2009; 71). Put simply, the rich nations have realized that they cannot afford to ignore the set of circumstances experienced by the most poor members of the international community and of course, international organizations like the United Nations and Red Cross, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the media have a role to play in this (Cramme and Diamond; 71-72). Hence it is clear that countries as a minimum owe a certain number of duties to people beyond their national borders (Cramme and Diamond; 72). Nonetheless there is disagreement over the subject matter that constitutes these obligations and the resolution of this dissent is critical – firstly because it will determine whether or not wealthy countries offer more help to the poor countries in the future and secondly, it will clarify the moral duties away from just charitable ones, owed by wealthy countries to foreigners outside their national territories (Abizadeh and Gilabert 2008; 352-353). It can also help to create a space for the actual implementation and administration of these obligations (Abizadeh and Gilabert 2008; 353). There is consent over the idea that justice should spread over national borders, however it remains debatable as to what the obligations ought to be limited to (Abizadeh and Gilabert 2008; 353). For cosmopolitans, the essence that helps establish national unity ought to be spread over national borders, hence the concept of justice becomes oblivious to territories – outsiders should be given equal regard (Abizadeh and Gilabert 2008; 353). Conversely, nationalists advocate that obligations and the application of justice towards foreigners is restricted, and do not exist outside charitable aid (Abizadeh and Gilabert 2008; 353).
Cosmopolitans believe that the individual should be the ultimate source of ethical debate and interest, hence the individual is worthy of equal attention regardless of any eventualities (Armstrong 2009; 162). All decisions made, must somehow benefit the individual, and only then are true morality and justice obtained (Armstrong 2009; 162). Accordingly, it is fundamental to apply the underlying justice ideals equally to every single person on Earth (Armstrong 2009; 162). The duties owed by wealthy nations to the impoverished ones then, equate to raising their standards of living above a meagre sustenance level (Armstrong 2009; 162-163). Hence the international disparities as we know them must be eradicated. Nevertheless, it has been argued that in the pursuit of the kind of international justice cosmopolitans advocate, the ultimate goal is equity, and this reasoning is driven by a view that the international disparities which exist are an ethical issue (Armstrong 2009; 163). This is similar to Rawls' perspective on equality – so long as equal chances exist and the social structure/system under which the national community operates somehow helps the most vulnerable society members, international disparities are bearable (Armstrong 2009; 163).
Although some nationalists like Fisher concur that rich countries owe obligations to other nations, these obligations are only supposed to be delivered to countries experiencing brutal destitution, in order to raise them to a level where they can acquire the absolute essentials of life without much struggle and sacrifice (Arneson 2005; 136). Again these obligations are charitable in nature. No duties are owed outside this framework. Therefore nationalists believe that justice ideals are limited to the national territory. They say that the features which constitute an individual country, are exclusive and irreplaceable, in addition to being the necessary elements in the pursuit of true fairness and equality, thus they limit equality to national territories (Arneson 2005; 136-138). The same features can never be found on an international scale according to them (Arneson 2005; 138). For the same reason, they claim that governments need not take the initiative to ensure that all people on Earth can access the world's wealth equally (Arneson 2005; 138).
Furthermore, nationalists claim that fellow countrymen are jointly responsible for the laws that their country enacts (Boylan 2011; 114). Additionally, the ethical implication of mutual deference proposed by nationalists is that the other nation is allowed to take its own decisions and face the outcome of those decisions by itself – self-governance is an undeniable right of every nation (Boylan 2011; 114). They should establish and rank their own policies and decisions (Boylan 2011; 114). Solely in the case where the decision causes a calamity, is intervention justified (Boylan 2011; 114). The cosmopolitan conception of justice is in conflict with nationalism. Nonetheless, the insights provided by the two are crucial. The nationalist view promotes a liberal and representative framework which is needed to maintain equality within a country, whereas cosmopolitans prefer equality to be promoted on an international scale (Boylan 2011; 114-116). They are equally fundamental hence surely, there is a middle ground (Abizadeh 2007; 319).
1c) Purpose of This Dissertation
In this dissertation, I seek to explore what the middle ground is between the cosmopolitan and liberal nationalist views and advocate that the middle ground is the best view as regards international justice. This is because both perspectives employ a certain level of liberalism, for example, the view that the sole element of ethical debate and decisions ought to be the individual, which is regardless of citizenship (Abizadeh 2007; 323). Citizenship or nationality serves as a form of identity which is important to all individuals, thus both the cosmopolitan and nationalist views are mutually reinforcing and a new understanding of nationalism should be established (Abizadeh 2007; 323-324). It will also be explained that countries together could be held accountable for the strategies they implement with regard to international poverty, under the new understanding of nationalism. Lastly I assert that although nationalists say that all citizens of a country are jointly liable for their poor decisions, impoverished countries are unable to conform to the particular ethics recommended by the new understanding of nationalism which cosmopolitans accept. Consequently although cosmopolitans agree to the idea of national sovereignty, they maintain that because the conditions experienced by impoverished countries are extremely severe, sovereignty is employed in circumstances whereby it erodes its worth and objective. Accordingly wealthy countries have more responsibilities towards impoverished ones than just charitable duties.
Additionally it will be shown that the current economic international system weakens the notion of shared accountability, since it constrains the options which impoverished countries can adopt. Hence these countries are rendered incapable of adopting laws and strategies which are most in their favour. Typically they can only decide which option is the least damaging on their economy, that also from a range of options that are dictated by the international system (Abizadeh 2007; 335). Grounding the duty of eradicating impoverishment on national autonomy has proven to be ineffective because involvement in the international system has become unavoidable (Abizadeh 2007; 335). Thus duties must be more than just charitable in nature.
In Chapter Two, cosmopolitanism and its comprehension of international justness is analysed. In particular the views of Nogueira, a moderate cosmopolitan, are expounded. Nogueira is of the view that both nationalism and cosmopolitanism share a symbiotic relationship, with the cosmopolitan view being slightly more prudent. The chapter explores what the middle ground between the conflicting views can potentially be, as suggested by Nogueira. Nogueira is selected because he does not completely write-off nationalist views, yet supports cosmopolitanism. Chapter Three explores the liberal nationalist view that in the pursuit of international justice, obligations ought to be limited to national borders with a crisis experienced in poor countries being the only exception. It also investigates the argument that in order to give deference to countries' entitlement of autonomy, international duties should be limited. The contention that the exceptional bonds which exist between countrymen ought to be exercised between them only, and not be superseded by worldwide justice duties is also examined. Chapter Four explains why the centre ground between the two standpoints is the best option and investigates how this centre ground can be obtained. I do this by studying both theories' fundamental contributions in the ethical and practical world. It is argued that a new understanding of nationalism should emerge that operates under the broader umbrella of the cosmopolitan view.
1e) Terms Used
One of the most broadly used terms in this dissertation is justice. Justice here, is associated to an international scale and is taken to mean equality of opportunity for all countries as well as individuals. A relatively liberal conception is applied which is deemed to be in harmony with both nationalism and cosmopolitanism. The words exclusive/extraordinary bonds, loyalty, nationality and patriotism are used to signify one and the same thing, which are the responsibilities that fellow nationals owe one another. Lastly the words nationalism and national interest are taken to signify the view that international justice responsibilities are limited to the curtailment of some social catastrophe in another country and the duty to distribute the world's resources equally, should be left up to national governments.
Chapter 2: The Cosmopolitan Argument
2a) What Cosmopolitans Think!
Cosmopolitans maintain that the contemporary nationalist understanding is discordant with international equality and justice (Brock 2009; 28). Nonetheless it is not fundamental that international equality is achieved by causing damage to all elements of nationalism (Brock 2009; 144). It has been argued that the cosmopolitan view of international equality and the nationalist view of limiting international duties is so discordant that they cannot possibly coexist in the same world, but this thinking is dubious and might actually be a misconception of both theories' actual composition (Brock 2009; 144). It is possible to attune the two standpoints, hence going beyond the usual tradition of denunciating opposing views in political debates (Brock 2009; 52). The kind of ethical duties they advocate for are more symbiotic than is usually presented (Nogueira 2009; 87).
Nogueira argues that according to cosmopolitans, our decision-making process should involve first considering the impact of our actions on others and then creating organizations in society which reflect this value (Nogueira 2009; 88). After all for cosmopolitans the supreme source of ethical concern should be the individual (Nogueira 2009; 12, Brock 2009; 17). Cosmopolitan values essentially, represent the spread of liberal standards that operate at the local level (Nogueira 2009; 89). Nogueira maintains that the notion of social equity which is applied to national frontiers can, and should be extended to the global sphere (Nogueira 2009; 89). With this notion of equity in mind, even the organizations we create, which are supposed to apportion resources equally between individuals, ought to be impervious to people's accidental eventualities (Nogueira 2009; 91). The reason for this is that these occurrences are a consequence of natural attributes and not an individual decision, hence they do not possess an ethical value (Nogueira 2009; 91). People's accidental qualities are shaped by various factors including their class, ethnicity, race, tribe, religion, aptitude, brainpower, etc. and in a liberal community; these elements ought not to influence an individual's privileges (Nogueira 2009; 91-92). This value should act as the foundation for all methods of apportionment as it serves to establish and preserve egalitarianism (Nogueira 2009; 92).
Hence accidental elements should not affect an individual's ability to access resources, and the apportionment of resources in the community ought to warrant this (Nogueira 2009; 127). For cosmopolitanism, nationality is also included in the list of accidental elements, and this should be renounced of any ethical significance when determining one's privileges (Nogueira 2009; 127). In essence the importance of the individual as the definitive element of ethical interest is emphasized by employing the global and vital value of egalitarianism by cosmopolitans (Nogueira 2009; 127). However, the prerequisite to this outlook is that a community's justice values be oblivious to a person's status so that justice is directed towards all people neutrally (Nogueira 2009; 128). It is this neutrality and obliviousness to accidental elements that spurs the equal resource apportionment to all society members (Nogueira 2009; 128). There is no ethical foundation for accidental elements like national borders for influencing one's opportunities according to cosmopolitanism (Nogueira 2009; 128). For cosmopolitans, national borders and nationality are accidental because they are a consequence of natural occurrences and not an individual's conscious selection (Nogueira 2009; 133). Nogueira gladly refers to this as “...a natural accident for which the individual does not deserve to be punished...” (Nogueira 2009; 133)!
The method of apportionment of resources inside the national borders is already entrenched in the fair and comprehensive value of national social equity, but cosmopolitans take this further and argue that these values should be employed for all of mankind and this means expanding the horizons of duty to all nations (Nogueira 2009; 135). It should not be forgotten that individuals who exist outside the rich nation boundary are also human and subject to the same needs and desires, therefore are worthy of similar, if not identical, values of justice (Nogueira 2009; 135). Akin to the way equity is obtained within a rich nation by eradicating each disparity in the distribution of resources, the same thing ought to be applied on an international scale also (Nogueira 2009; 135). It has been argued that disparities in income between countries ought to be accepted provided those disparities actually help the poorest members on the international front (Rehg 2006; 272). This standpoint is similar to the disparities that Rawls justifies in his liberal society (Rawls 1971; 55, Rehg 2006; 272). Rawls argues that in a liberal society, disparities ought to be accepted since they help and further the needs of the poorest compatriots (Rawls 1999; 128). He extends this to the international scene, arguing that a rich countries' income ought to be accepted even if there are massive disparities in income levels between nations, so long as they assist the poorest members (Rawls 1999; 128, Rehg 2006; 272). In effect, wealthy countries ought to take on the responsibility of making the poorest people's lives better (Rehg 2006; 272). However Rehg sustains that in reality, this necessitates going beyond solely charitable aid which most nationalists advocate for, be it financial or otherwise, since the current international disparities and the international economic system do not benefit the poorest members (Rehg 2006; 272-273).
In a perfect world, it may even be possible to argue that the duties towards poor people do not end at the level of ensuring that they have access to the basic necessities of life, and this is another major point of contention between cosmopolitanism and nationalism (Lenhardt 2004; 103). Equity between people and the entitlement for equal regard is agreed upon by both liberal nationalists and cosmopolitans (Lenhardt 2004; 103). This is because liberal nationalism does place value on human life and yields that individuals, at the end of the day, are in fact, humans (Lenhardt 2004; 103). Nonetheless there is the perception that the bond compatriots share provides the basis for the universal acknowledgement of the fact that even though national borders are accidental aspects, compatriots in all countries exhibit additional and exclusive obligations towards one another (Lenhardt 2004; 103-104). These obligations render international egalitarian apportionment of global resources and justice, unrealisable (Lenhardt 2004; 104). Lenhardt maintains that there is no denying that these obligations do remain, however they should be limited in order to make international justice realizable (Lenhardt 2004; 104). Nationalists consider that the exclusive duties that co-nationals share act as a hindrance to international equality and justice, but this thesis argues that the cosmopolitan view is flexible enough to harbour the exceptional bonds that co-nationals share. Also if one correctly comprehends these obligations, it is easy to see that such obligations are not completely contradictory to the cosmopolitan stance. This is expounded upon in the following sections.
2b) Ought Nationalist Exclusive Bonds Be Shelved?
Many extreme cosmopolitans do not see any value in the exclusive bonds that co-nationals share, while others downgrade the worth of these bonds to a mere contributory level in the pursuit of international equality (Nogueira 2009; 193). Nonetheless according to Nogueira, who is a moderate cosmopolitan, these bonds are important and ought not to be shelved (Nogueira 2009; 193). This is because these bonds are beneficial and dear to those who share them, and they also help to obtain equality and fairness within the local national community (Nogueira 2009; 193). Nogueira further argues that the exclusive bonds which fellow nationals share, bestow onto them a sense of belonging, identity and significance that could never be understood and appreciated by a few seemingly logical values from outside (Nogueira 2009; 194). The only way to ensure support for such a belief is to institute and inculcate a sense of practicality and reasonableness which accommodates some of both, the extreme cosmopolitan, as well as nationalist views (Nogueira 2009; 194). Furthermore the nationalist exclusive bonds determine the level to which a nation acquires democracy and therefore social equality (Nogueira 2009; 194). Hence extreme cosmopolitans are incorrect to subject such extraordinary bonds to ethical inspection by drawing on external ethical values (Nogueira 2009; 194, Brock 2009; 253).
Nevertheless it has been argued that as far as international justice is concerned, such tight bonds do not exist outside the scope of the equity principle that general cosmopolitanism advocates (Nogueira 2009; 195). All that cosmopolitanism asks is that the undertaking of these bonds in the rich country is not done so by taking away from the responsibilities of improved well-being that are owed to the impoverished countries (Nogueira 2009; 195). Hence it is not really necessary to inspect these extraordinary ties between co-nationals – what matters is that in any mode the ties exist, these ties obey the need of extending the principles of justice to all of mankind (Nogueira 195). Therefore although extraordinary ties should be accepted, it is mandatory that they are carried out with the well-being of all individuals in mind (Nogueira 2009; 195).
Kumar argues that the current understanding of nationalism and its associated values should not be the way they are, and what makes the current situation even worse is that these values are standardized and normalized (Kumar 2005; 33). Consequently it makes breaking away from these values psychologically, emotionally, physically and socially impossible, hence this is unacceptable (Kumar 2005; 33). This is where Nogueira's argument that one needs to possess great prudence to establish and implement a new foundation for nationalist ties in accordance with international equality, comes in. He maintains that it does not matter what form the exclusive ties take, however these ties ought to be limited by, and realized within, the background of the values and duties of international justice and equality (Nogueira 2009; 194). If this understanding becomes the accepted norm globally, then the present customs of nationalism would not infringe upon the justice obligations that affluent nations have towards poor ones (Nogueira 2009; 194).
In short, nationalism sustains that the extraordinary bonds between co-nationals possess identical ethical worth as the duties of (unequal) international justice (Brock 2009; 181). Additionally both can be exercised together (Brock 2009; 181). But in the present environment, as far as importance is concerned, once a rich nation-state meets its duties of charitable aid, more deterrents are not placed on the duties towards fellow nationals but towards foreigners, they are (Brock 2009; 182). Conversely for cosmopolitanism the extraordinary bonds between co-nationals should be restricted in order to realize international equality and justice (Brock 2009; 182).
2b)i) Charitable Aid
Cosmopolitanism rejects the notion that a nation's responsibility is limited to charitable obligations because this suggests that the present international point of departure is tolerable (Caney, George and Jones 1996; 127). According to Nogueira, the constitution of the present international system is not arranged in a way that would in any way profit the poorest members (Nogueira 2009; 155). By not reorganizing the international system, the obligation of charitable aid would be rendered capable of only dealing with the consequences of inequality, but incapable of tackling the root cause of inequality (Nogueira 2009; 155). Therefore charitable aid is unsatisfactory for international justice. Because the obligations those co-nationals owe one another ought to be restricted by international justice responsibilities, solely meeting charitable obligations results in the lack of realization of international justice duties (Caney, George and Jones 1996; 128, Nogueira 2009; 155). Moreover limiting international obligations to only charitable aid and then ensuing nationalist obligations causes an indefensible imbalance because the vital and all-embracing value of international equality insists that disparities ought to occur solely for the benefit of the poorest members (Rehg 2006; 272).
From the above analysis, I am of the opinion that as regards the value of international equality, nationalist duties ought to be awarded precedence, given that first international justice obligations owed to impoverished countries are met. So, preference towards patriotic exclusive ties can be considered profound, once the Earth's poorest members' lives are bettered. Realization of these obligations demands an international system whereby most or all organizations operate in a manner which benefit the world's poorest. However because this is not currently happening, awarding precedence to nationalist bonds by restricting international obligations to only charitable aid, makes it doubly unbearable. This view is expounded upon in greater detail in the third and fourth chapter.
2c) Nationalist Neutrality
Nationalism contends in favour of patriotism because according to nationalism, the factors which promote social equality within the local national community are valid and authentic solely inside national boundaries, and are non-existent on the international front (Tamir 1993; 65). One such factor is that obligations towards the national government and co-nationals are mandatory; essentially making them a legally enforced influence and this mandatory nature nationalists argue, ensures greatest equality within the country (Tamir 1993; 65). The equal distribution of resources is a way of accommodating the fact that residents are loaded with duties of national residency (Tamir 1993; 65-66). Because such pressure is non-existent on the international front and there are no organizations to enforce such compulsion, it is impractical to think that justice could be distributed equally between nations – there is no foundation on which to ensure this (Tamir 1993; 66). However this does not signify abandonment of international justice duties for nationalism – if it did, then it would suggest the weakening of the value of equality (Tamir 1993; 66-67). These international duties are realized under the title of charitable aid duties (Tamir 1993; 67). Nationalism thus argues that one need not regard every individual equally to comply with the general egalitarian interest for all of mankind (Tamir 1993; 67). Hence realization of justice for all of mankind neither requires equal universal resource distribution, nor does it dismiss exclusive patriotic ties (Tamir 1993; 67). Conducting charitable aid duties in addition to the exclusive duties towards co-nationals neither contravenes equal regard for mankind, nor is it proscribed (O'Neill 2000; 222). Though they possess equal regard for every individual, the level of regard people have towards mankind alters and this phenomenon can be found worldwide according to nationalists (Holden 1996; 97). People instinctively develop more affiliation with those near them and this often transforms into disparate distribution of their resources (Holden 1996; 97). This is considered to be perfectly reasonable because the poorest members of impoverished countries also, will not consider the fondness between fellow nationals as unfair (Holden 1996; 97-98). Even the poor individual is biased towards his/her own close relationships, hence he/she is aware of this natural tendency and cannot consider this disparate regard as damaging the comprehensive value of equal regard (Holden 1996; 98). Nevertheless it is the social settings and their related organizations which influence whether or not the exclusive ties are reasonable (O'Neill 2000; 225). Lest this is the case then, every exclusive patriotic duty conducted to the detriment of any impoverished person globally, would effectively be an infringement of the equal regard value (O'Neill 2000; 225).
2d) Organizations' Reasonableness
Nogueira maintains that the kind of compulsion nationalists assert for the attainment of equality and justice exists on the international stage for people from impoverished countries as well (Nogueira 2009; 280). According to him, the present international system requires people to obey certain economic and political policies which advance national interests and their effects extend universally, for example Structural Adjustment Programmes requiring impoverished nations to establish liberal democratic economies so that their long-standing debts can be written-off (Nogueira 2009; 280). Such policies affect individuals' life chances globally (Nogueira 2009; 280). These policies include the rules governing the activities of multinational companies as well as copyright regulations (Nogueira 2009; 281). Even if it is assumed that nationalists are correct in stating that equality in a community is driven by the mandatory legal community setting which restricts a person's choices, similar elements are present on the international scale as well (Nogueira 2009; 281-282) What makes the compulsory and legally binding influence reasonable within the local national community is that citizens are assured that they will at least acquire equitable distribution of the country's wealth and resources (Nogueira 2009; 282). Furthermore as regards national governments, because they pursue their national interests in an age of intense international interdependence, it is not only co-nationals that ought to be treated as beneficiaries of carrots (Nogueira 2009; 282). Many foreigners are negatively impacted as rich national governments continue to pursue their selfish interests, hence these wealthy governments also owe an explanation to the poor foreigners for such compulsion (Nogueira 2009; 282).
These are the basic arguments of cosmopolitanism. Following on from this chapter, the nationalist argument and its insistence on charitable aid duties is analysed.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Ashray Sood (Autor), 2012, Can the gap between Liberal Nationalist and Cosmopolitan views be bridged to tackle international inequality/poverty in the pursuit of international justice and if so, how can, and why should, this be done?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/384424