Kok-Chor Tan

University of Pennsylvania

July 2003

Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in The Law of Peoples

In this paper, I will try to tease out the cosmopolitan and nationalist elements that might be present in Rawls's The Law of Peoples (LP) and see how they hang together in that work. Given that Rawls does not explicitly use the language of nationalism, and given that Rawls explicitly rejects the cosmopolitan ideal, I will first explain the ways in which elements of nationalism and cosmopolitanism might be said to be present in LP. In particular, with regard to cosmopolitanism, I suggest that there is a commitment in LP to what some writers have called a "weak cosmopolitan" position (I). I then show how the cosmopolitan and nationalist commitments, ordinarily taken to be contradictory, are taken to be reconciled in LP (II). I go on to ask if LP has presented a satisfactory understanding and reconciliation of cosmopolitanism and nationalism. Focusing on the topic of distributive justice, I will argue that the nationalist argument invoked in LP does not justify Rawls's rejection of global egalitarianism (III). I also contend that to the extent Rawls wants his global theory to developed "within a liberal conception of justice", he should endorse a stronger cosmopolitan position (IV).