Abstract

While differences in economic advantage can be put behind a veil of ignorance, this produces no transnational obligation to reduce inequality since the representatives of peoples are not concerned with the further, individual interests of people. If John Rawls's version of original position is extrapolated worldwide, the cosmopolitanism of equality ought to be rejected as inappropriate in the Standard Case. In contrast, a transnational demand for relief of abject poverty would be appropriate. Political conception specifies an ideal of well‐ordered relations among governments that ought to regulate the foreign policy of a liberal government. The cosmopolitanism of need, basing a global political duty to relieve abject poverty on a global original position of individuals, accommodates all of the specifications by Rawls of domestic and global justice. However, there is one element that resists accommodation, the limited duty of assistance that is Rawls's actual demand for relief of foreign poverty.