There is a significant essence to considering the measure of justice within and across borders and the impact on the societies. Over the decades, many communities have encountered difficulties based on the conflicting policies across dynamic institutions (Appiah & Bhabha, 2018). A demonstration is a requirement for fair treatment among refugees. On the one hand, American citizens are bounded by the legal frameworks across the states. On the other hand, the universal Bill of Rights accords all human beings the fundamental rights to health, life, and justice (O’Neill, 2000). Therefore, all stakeholders must establish the vital influential baseline of distributive justice among the citizens and the foreigners. This study focuses on equal justice for both citizens and foreigners. The establishment of state laws is an initiative that poses boundaries based on sovereignty but optimally limits the distribution of the social justice system among interstate communities.
One of the perspectives concerning justice is the essence of promoting sovereignty and social identity. Research indicates that different societies uphold various policies that prominently impact socio-cultural dimensions (Nussbaum, 2019). In this case, individuals from a particular setting focus on attaining a social identity based on the constructed justice system on human interaction and growth and development structure. Therefore, the bounded justice system plays a significant role in the promotion of individualism among people in a particular social setting (Buchowski, 2018). Ideally, the bounded rules and regulations proficiently improve the relationship-building mainly because of the harmonization of common interests. An illustration is the legalization of marijuana in certain American states. Although the Federal government considers marijuana trade and farming illegal, the economic activity is a vital pillar of living standards among people in some states, such as Colorado. There is a limitation of the justice on the use of medical marijuana across American states, an initiative that limits the engagement among foreigners.
In a different spectrum, the core mandate of cosmopolitan justice lies in the aspect of ensuring equity in the treatment of both foreign and local citizens. There is a significant difference between moral cosmopolitanism and institutional anti-cosmopolitanism. On the one hand, moral cosmopolitanism focuses on empowering individuals with the capacity to perform particular tasks (Namli, 2019). On the other hand, institutional anti-cosmopolitanism involves the ideological aspect of promoting a centralized governance system. In this case, the institutional anti-cosmopolitan entails the bounded regulatory framework that prioritizes the rights of the local citizens against the foreign citizens (Huber & Jansen, 2021). However, it is a moral obligation among people despite the socio-cultural context in an area. In this case, the core mandate of cosmopolitanism enshrines the provision of a platform to promote equality.
Cosmopolitanism is an entity with dynamic institutional baselines, such as socio-cultural, economic, and political domains. An illustration of an initiative that fosters significant impact toward distributive justice is the implementation of policies enhancing intercultural and interstate engagements. A cosmopolitan culture is an outcome of the exchange of values among communities from different locations with the aim of fostering unity and the bond (Bourchier, 2019). The initiative aptly attributes to sufficiency in the articulation of sustainable growth and development. The lack of initiatives promoting moral cosmopolitan through sociological and cultural aspects risks the marginalization and discrimination of personnel based on region. On the one hand, the concept of interdependence internationally poses the opportunity to appreciate cultural diversity and dynamic personalities (Agustín & Jørgensen, 2019). On the other hand, the institutional cosmopolitan mainly aligned to political philosophies risks the bounded justice system limiting the internationalization of cultural practices. Notably, governments are responsible for developing initiatives that elevate the relationship mainly because of the articulate aspect of moral obligations.
There are distinct aspects and theoretical constructs that impact the influence on character development among personnel. According to research, communitarianism enshrines the philosophy of interconnectivity between community and the person (Meckstroth, 2018). In this case, an individual’s character is moulded by significant sociological pillars in a community. Ideally, there is an interdependent relationship between the institutional policies in a community and the personality traits among the members. The communitarianism concept adeptly fosters the necessity of promoting individualistic aspects under the spectral view of the shared socio-cultural values (De Wilde et al., 2019). One prominent factor contributing to the determination of international peace and the emergence of a global village is the engagement among people without regulatory limitations. The cultural value exchange fosters the growth and development of personnel along the gradient of the localized and globalized cultural dimension that trickles down to an appreciation of socio-cultural diversity.
Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy contrary to the essence of political sovereignty mainly because of the dynamic initiatives it harmonizes. Research indicates that the core mandate of internationalized socio-cultural foundations entails standardizing humanity practices and beliefs, human rights, aspirations, and the human conscience (Buchowski, 2018). Fundamentally, the stakeholders’ mandate is to establish institutional policies that alleviate the limitation on interstate engagements. All personnel have an obligation to contribute to fostering a profound impact on the practice. As a result, it is crucial to indicate the quotients that enhance the bond among people despite the political differences (Biedendorf, 2019). A demonstration of an effective institutional cosmopolitanism is the establishment of the United Nations. The United Nations’ central role involves advocating for apt aspects of promoting social justice. In this case, the critical mandate among entities encompasses the intersectionality of key socio-cultural domains to alleviate the marginalization of different communities.
The United Nations is an outcome of the cosmopolitan initiative that focuses on centralizing activities that steer distributive justice. Although it is the individual responsibility to engage in programs that enhance equality, it is vital to incorporate standard measures that improve the efficacy scale (Nussbaum, 2019). On the one hand, institutionalized anti-cosmopolitanism focuses on the accrued benefits for the small-scale regional communities. On the other hand, moral and institutional cosmopolitanism renders the necessity of distributive justice within the mainframe of socio-cultural, economic, and political aspects.
Succinctly, it is an individual responsibility to engage in forums and platforms that enhance both regional and international endeavours in the social justice system. On the one hand, bounded justice fosters growth and development mainly because of the adept sovereignty in conducting operations. On the other hand, institutional and moral cosmopolitanism focuses on the aspect of promoting cultural diversity across the global populace. Therefore, institutional cosmopolitanism involves the articulation of profound initiatives elevating the sustainability of the practice. Although it is vital to promote a regional social justice system, the community’s mandate is to promote distributive justice for foreigners mainly because of the qualification as human beings with similar human rights standards. Notably, cosmopolitanism is an ideology that focuses on the aesthetic nature of morality and the regulatory frameworks based on territorial baselines.
Reference list
Agustín, Ó.G. and Jørgensen, M.B. (2019). Solidarity cities and cosmopolitanism from below: Barcelona as a refugee city. Social Inclusion, 7(2), pp. 198-207.
Appiah, K.A. and Bhabha, H. (2018). Cosmopolitanism and convergence. New Literary History, 49(2), pp. 171-198.
Biedendorf, J. (2019). Cosmopolitanism and the development of the international criminal court: non-governmental organizations’ advocacy and transnational human rights. Rowman & Littlefield.
Buchowski, M. (2018). Cosmopolitanism with a human rights face. Przegląd Kulturoznawczy, 35(1), pp. 140-145.
Bourchier, D.M. (2019). Two decades of ideological contestation in Indonesia: from democratic cosmopolitanism to religious nationalism. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 49(5), pp. 713-733.
De Wilde, P., Koopmans, R., Merkel, W. and Zürn, M. eds. (2019). The struggle over borders: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. Cambridge University Press.
Namli, E. (2019). Cosmopolitanism, sovereignty and human rights-in defense of critical universalism. Ethical Thought, 19(1), pp. 20-35.
Huber, V. and Jansen, J.C. (2021). Dealing with difference: cosmopolitanism in the nineteenth-century world of empires. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 12(1), pp. 39-46.
Meckstroth, C. (2018). Hospitality, or Kant’s critique of cosmopolitanism and human rights. Political Theory, 46(4), pp. 537-559.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2019). The cosmopolitan tradition. In the cosmopolitan tradition. Harvard University Press.
O’Neill, O.N.O.R.A. (2000). Bounded and cosmopolitan justice. Review of International Studies, 26(5), pp. 045-060.