Contemporary cosmopolitan moral theorists argue that in our increasingly interconnected world all individuals need to recognize that moral duties span state borders, involving responsibilities such as respecting human rights
Such arguments usually focus on the duties of individuals or on reforms for international political and economic institutions. The Cosmopolitan Potential of Exclusive Associations draws attention to how non-state, not-for-profit transnational associations can advance moral equality in a plurality of less obvious ways. By synthesizing moral theories of cosmopolitanism with international relations scholarship it is possible to establish criteria for assessing whether and to what extent transnational associations like Doctors without Borders or the International Olympic Committee cultivate respect for fellow humans and build transnational communities. As these examples show, not all non-state associations have the purpose of advocating for human rights. Membership is also not necessarily inclusive of all humanity. Membership criteria exclude based on criteria such as professional expertise, athletic prowess, or certain religious beliefs. As a result, assessing their impact requires looking for partial expressions of cosmopolitanism that arise piecemeal and without self-conscious intention. Rather than defending one version of cosmopolitan theory as more applicable to evaluating the impact of associations, adapting and combining four common approaches to cosmopolitanism
|