The Pursuit of Global Justice in Cosmopolitanism Theory

Cosmopolitanism has risen to prominence in political science and international relations alongside the transformative forces of globalization and is trying to provide solutions for the problems of today's world by proposing new topics in the field. One of its core tenets is the pursuit of global justice. the theorists generally draw upon John Rawls' ideas and consider it possible to achieve global justice. Their proposals for achieving global justice include collective national responsibility, reformed international institutions, robust human rights protections, a potential world government, a reduction in nation-state sovereignty, and reforming the structure of the international system regarding egalitarian individualism and global citizenship. This article tries to understand and consider the concept of global justice within cosmopolitanism theory. It examines what solutions cosmopolitans offer to achieve global justice. From this point of view, cosmopolitans, by constantly criticizing global inequalities at all levels, combine the idea of moral and normative responsibility of all human beings with the reform of regimes and international institutions and believe in the realization of global justice.

Cosmopolitanism has risen to prominence in political science and international relations alongside the transformative forces of globalization and is trying to provide solutions for the problems of today's world by proposing new topics in the field. Cosmopolitans place central importance on the concept of justice, its various dimensions, and implications. This focus stems from their deep understanding of justice's critical role and the detrimental effects of global injustices. Of course, the efforts of philosophers and thinkers to present a theory about justice and propose solutions to reduce injustice go back to ancient times, and the pre-Socratic philosophers in ancient Greece were the pioneers of this movement. The reason for this is the unbreakable link between justice and the daily life of people. Recognizing the importance of the justice concept, this research tries to explore cosmopolitan perspectives on its characteristics, scope (domestic and global), and attainability. It further explores the solutions proposed by cosmopolitans to achieve global justice.

By choosing the hermeneutic method, inspired by the ideas of philosophers such as Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey, the research aims to design a codified framework about global justice from the texts and writings of cosmopolitan thinkers.
However, before exploring this method, it is necessary to address the core tenets of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitans view the individual as the fundamental unit of ethics. They posit the hypothesis that every human being has equal claims to a good life and that factors like nationality, culture, race, and gender should not hinder achieving it. Furthermore, the theory of cosmopolitanism encompasses three key aspects: moral, institutional, and political.

The foundation for cosmopolitan theorists' ideas on global justice rests on the 1970 publication of John Rawls's seminal work, A Theory of Justice. While Rawls's theory originally focused on the internal sphere of nation-states, cosmopolitan theorists like Charles Beitz, Thomas Pogge, Gillian Brock [1], and David Miller [2] have endeavored to extend its application to the international and global level. Charles Beitz argues that embracing a universal framework for justice necessitates two key perspectives: normative and historical. The normative dimension emphasizes the need for global justice to be realized through standards and models free from coercion, mirroring the domestic level. The historical dimension highlights the domestic roots of global poverty, placing a responsibility on governments and their citizens to reform existing structures and achieve global justice. Beitz further proposes a two-pronged approach to realizing global justice: the weak and strong thesis. His weak thesis posits that international relations, due to their structural similarities to domestic societies, are subject to principles of distributive justice. The strong thesis advocates for applying Rawls's principles of justice directly to international relations, forming the foundation for a comprehensive theory of global justice.
Thomas Pogge, another prominent theorist, explores Rawls's concept of choosing justice principles under the "veil of ignorance" in his 1989 book, Realizing Rawls. He argues for a universal foundation designed to ensure equal liberties and fair opportunities for all, mirroring the conditions Rawls envisioned for domestic societies. However, David Miller, a cosmopolitan thinker, diverges from Pogge and Beitz. He contends that the principles of global justice are fundamentally distinct from those of domestic social justice. Miller cites the existence of distinct nation-states, each with the right to self-determination, as a key factor in this differentiation.

The relationship between institutions, sovereignty, and global justice is another central theme of this article. Cosmopolitans emphasize the crucial role institutions play in fostering harmony between individuals and governments, ultimately paving the way for global justice. They advocate for reforms within key institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization to better serve this purpose. In the field of the relationship between global justice and sovereignty, cosmopolitans view state sovereignty as a significant hurdle to achieving global justice. They advocate for marginalizing the current nation-state system in favor of a more decentralized global sovereignty structure that prioritizes realizing global justice. Inspired by Kant's ideas, Pogge proposes four principles to state decentralization. He argues for independent states participating in an international federation without completely relinquishing their sovereignty. Cosmopolitan theorists acknowledge the impracticality of dismantling the Westphalian order entirely. Drawing on Kant again, they emphasize the necessity of joint participation by citizens at both national and global levels to achieve global justice.

Cosmopolitan theorists, despite some internal variations in approach, share a core belief in the attainability of global justice. They draw inspiration from John Rawls's ideas, particularly egalitarian individualism and global citizenship. To achieve this just world order, they advocate for a multi-pronged approach. It includes collective responsibility at the national level, reformed international institutions, robust human rights protections, and the potential for a world government. While some envision a diminished role for nation-states, others emphasize reform within the existing system. Ultimately, cosmopolitans believe that relentless criticism of global inequalities, coupled with institutional reform, can pave the way for a more just global order.
 Cosmopolitans' views on global justice are not without critique, even from within the movement itself. Some, like Nagel, reject the idea of weakening national borders, arguing that egalitarian justice cannot exist without the power structures these borders represent. They believe that economic and social justice lose meaning in the absence of a competent central authority. David Miller aligns with Nagel, suggesting that justice is more attainable within defined borders of shared culture and history. Thomas Michael Black emphasizes the need for powerful states to support the institutions necessary to enforce it. Skeptics such as Robert Gilpin argue that inequality is likely to persist due to the lack of robust institutions capable of pressuring powerful governments toward wealth redistribution. Finally, critics such as Wolff argue that a focus solely on wealth redistribution, without commitment to economic growth and development, creates a flawed vision of global justice.