Global Justice: Cosmopolitan versus Statist Positions
John Rawls extended his theory of justice to the international domain in The Law of Peoples (1999, Harvard University Press), but in doing so he explicitly declined to apply the difference principle globally. Rawls argued instead for a more limited "duty of assistance," under which well-ordered peoples are obligated to help "burdened societies" — those whose historical, social, or economic circumstances prevent them from establishing just or decent institutions — attain the capacity for decent self-government, but not to equalize wealth or income across the globe as the difference principle requires domestically. Rawls's framework respects the political self-determination and internal pluralism of different "peoples," including what he called "decent hierarchical societies" that are not fully liberal but still respect basic human rights and consult their members, treating peoples rather than individuals as the primary units of international justice.
Why do you think there's historiographical debate about "Global Justice: Cosmopolitan versus Statist Positions"?