To the extent that globalization is creating a global market society, this in itself constitutes a set of shared practices, and contributes to a community of shared interests For example, market society has certain attributes-the need for bureaucratic regulation recognition of private property, civil courts, to name a few- which by virtue of their pronounced spill-over effects contribute to shared interests among participants. nOt the least of these is an interest in considering institutions which supplement and mitigate the rigors of capitalism, compensating the losers" through some form of wealth transfer Perhaps the strongest force for, and evidence of, an emerging global community involves our shared need to look to institutions beyond the state in order to frame an adequate social response to many of the problems and challenges we face. Social allocation today is increasingly conducted through a complex partnership, consisting of states and their constituent units; international organizations and non-state actors -all regulated or established through international law, and forming a global basic structure in Rawlsian terms 19 This shift towards the meta-state level has profound consequences for global community. First, this shift indicates that national communities of justice are no longer self-sufficient. From a distributive perspective, globalization is revealing domestic society to be an incomplete community, incapable of securing the overall well-being of its members by itself, and requiring a higher level of community-the global -to secure I8 See e.g. DON SLATER AND FRAN TONKISS, MARKET SOCIETY 92-116(2001)(surveying range of institutions which markets require/are embedded in) "The institutions and quasi-formal arrangements affecting persons' life prospects throughout the world are increasingly international ones-IFIs, MNC'S, the G-8, the WTo.. Jones, supra note 8 at 8. Jones also argues that the traditional Rawlsian view, limiting justice to domestic society, "fails to assess the moral character of those institutions IdTo the extent that globalization is creating a global market society, this in itself constitutes a set of shared practices, and contributes to a community of shared interests. For example, market society has certain attributes – the need for bureaucratic regulation, recognition of private property, civil courts, to name a few – which by virtue of their pronounced spill-over effects contribute to shared interests among participants.18 Not the least of these is an interest in considering institutions which supplement and mitigate the rigors of capitalism, compensating the “losers” through some form of wealth transfer. Perhaps the strongest force for, and evidence of, an emerging global community involves our shared need to look to institutions beyond the state in order to frame an adequate social response to many of the problems and challenges we face. Social allocation today is increasingly conducted through a complex partnership, consisting of states and their constituent units; international organizations; and non-state actors - all regulated or established through international law, and forming a “global basic structure” in Rawlsian terms.19 This shift towards the meta-state level has profound consequences for global community. First, this shift indicates that national communities of justice are no longer self-sufficient. From a distributive perspective, globalization is revealing domestic society to be an incomplete community, incapable of securing the overall well-being of its members by itself, and requiring a higher level of community – the global - to secure 18 See e.g. DON SLATER AND FRAN TONKISS, MARKET SOCIETY 92-116 (2001) (surveying range of institutions which markets require/are embedded in). 19 “The institutions and quasi-formal arrangements affecting persons’ life prospects throughout the world are increasingly international ones – IFI’s, MNC’s, the G-8, the WTO….” Jones, supra note 8 at 8. Jones also argues that the traditional Rawlsian view, limiting justice to domestic society, “fails to assess the moral character of those institutions.” Id.. 7