Shapcott investigates the question of justice in a culturally diverse world, asking if it is possible to conceive of a universal or cosmopolitan community in which justice to difference is achieved. Justice to difference is possible, according to Shapcott, by recognising the particular manner in which different humans identify themselves. Such recognition is most successfully accomplished through acts of communication, and in particular, conversation. The accounts of understanding developed by H. G. Gadamer provide a valuable way forward in this field. The philosophical hermeneutic account of conversation allows for the development of a level of cosmopolitan solidarity that is both 'thin' and universal, and which helps to provide a more just resolution of the tension between the values of community and difference. Students and scholars of international relations, international ethics and philosophy will be interested in this original study.

This book is concerned with the issue of cultural diversity and international morality. The author asks whether cultural diversity presents an obstacle to the development of ethical codes which could be acceptable to cultures around the world. He argues that the human capacity to engage in conversation and the ability to understand each other despite linguistic and cultural differences can provide the basis for the development of a world-wide, cosmopolitian moral community. Conversation can be a moral act, in which participants treat each other as equals despite their differences.

This book explores the role that states might play in promoting a cosmopolitan condition as an agent of cosmopolitanism rather than an obstacle to it. In doing so the book seeks to develop recent arguments in favour of locating cosmopolitan moral and political responsibility at the state level as either an alternative to, or a corollary of, cosmopolitanism as it is more commonly understood qua requiring transnational or global bearers of responsibility. As a result, the contributions in this volume see an on-going role for the state, but also its transformation, perhaps only partially, into a more cosmopolitan-minded institution - instead of a purely 'national' or particularistic one. It therefore makes the case that the state as a form of political community can be reconciled with various form of cosmopolitan responsibility. In this way the book will address the question of how states, in the present, and in the future, can be better bearers of cosmopolitan responsibilities?