Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Basic Rights and Cosmopolitan Justice from an Enlightened Localist Perspective

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Comparative Sociology
For content published from 1960-2001, see International Journal of Comparative Sociology.

This article links a normative analysis of basic rights to an important debate between cosmopolitans and localists on the moral standing of particular political communities. Cosmopolitan scholars often defend the universality of basic rights by appealing to the importance of satisfying the vital needs of every human being. For its part, the localist critique of cosmopolitanism defends compatriot favoritism and emphasizes the role of particularist attachments that are thought to cultivate solidarity, reciprocity, and legitimacy. I move beyond this dualism and adopt an “enlightened localist” approach that justifies basic rights from a universal-cosmopolitan perspective even as it attends to local commitments when faced with corresponding issues of agency and the distribution of responsibility. I distinguish different cosmopolitan accounts in favor of basic rights and argue that one of them successfully defends the validity of basic rights from a universal perspective. But such an account cannot resolve the problem of agency in the global sphere: it cannot specify how transnational obligations corresponding to these basic rights should be allocated. In short, while the normative justification of basic rights is persuasive, the distribution of responsibilities that would render such rights institutionally effective rests on shaky grounds. I conclude by showing that cosmopolitan responsibilities corresponding to basic rights are more appropriately discharged by local communities as the most relevant agents of global justice - if such localism proceeds from an “enlightened” perspective.

Affiliations: 1: Nuffield College New Road, Oxford OX1 1NF UK, Email:


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Comparative Sociology — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation