The central claim of cosmopolitanism is that we owe duties of justice to all the persons of the world. If this claim is true, it would seem to have profound implications for the arrangement and powers of institutions of governance. Agreement about the truth of the central claim of cosmopolitanism is consistent with significant disagreement about its requirements. One source of this disagreement has to do with the content of justice. I shall not focus much on this matter here. Another source has to do with which duties of justice are global. Disagreements arise about whether certain duties of justice are owed to compatriots or to non-compatriots. Varieties of cosmopolitanism may be different responses to the fact that global governance is currently for the most part delegated to states.

In this essay I shall argue that the best account of duties of justice is as associative duties. I then discuss whether a global association exists; although the evidence is not unambiguous, it seems to support the view that there is an economic association. I go on to argue that taking duties of global justice seriously is consistent with ignoring or discounting certain interests of non-compatriots within a system of global governance that includes states. But just global governance requires at least global institutions that would ensure that duties of distributive justice are fulfilled and global or regional institutions to protect other interests of persons in cases of state failure.