This article attempts to respond to the major critical themes in the commentaries by Jones, Hibbert and Lecce on the book Cosmopolitan Regard. The book's ‘statist’ assumptions are acknowledged, and defended in light of the project that is undertaken. Its use of an un-sociological notion of legitimacy is explained. Its argument is characterized as one that seeks to constrain agency rather than to prescribe distributive outcomes of a strongly egalitarian kind. Finally, the argument's dependence on empirical assumptions is recognized
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3366/jipt.2013.0047
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,147
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

World Poverty and Human Rights.Thomas Pogge - 2002 - Ethics and International Affairs 19 (1):1-7.
The Problem of Global Justice.Thomas Nagel - 2005 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):113-147.
World Risk Society.Ulrich Beck - 2012 - In Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen Friis, Stig Andur Pedersen & Vincent F. Hendricks (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Wiley-Blackwell.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Ethics of Carr and Wendt: Fairness and Peace.Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou - 2018 - Journal of International Political Theory 14 (3):314-330.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
9 ( #847,588 of 2,324,676 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #679,828 of 2,324,676 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes