reality, this often amounts to very little, when it amounts to anything at all: a food package, a blue helmet in the vicinity, and an occasional visit by an international human rights investigator. This is not much, but I would suggest that in this we see the germ of a global basic package What is still missing? There are two fundamental gaps: the absence of effective mechanisms for global wealth transfers at the scale necessary to support the global basi package; and the absence of effective political representation or voice at the global level.- How we get there, and in the process go from international law to global public law, will require a profound re-examination of core international legal doctrines and institutions such as boundaries, sovereignty, legitimacy, citizenship, and the territorial control of resources et me suggest as an example and a starting point, that we must re-think the role of territorial political boundaries. Territorial boundaries now serve as the frame on which we hang various concepts of distributive justice such as citizenship and the territorial control of resources, which profoundly influence the life prospects of all affected individuals. By privileging citizens over non-citizens in terms of access to the global basic package, the political boundary of citizenship dramatically affects our life prospects on the basis of one of the most arbitrary aspects of our natural condition-the place we 2 Indeed, the limited nature of this response has lead commentators such as Jean B Elshtain to argue that in these particulars there is still no equivalent to the state, citing Ahrendts point that the only meaningful (panel), "Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2, 2004(on file wih Y. ite for citizenship remains the state. Theorizing Globalization in a Time of war: Challenges and Agendas author). However, I believed this says more about the limits of current theory and politics, than it does about the intrinsic limits of meta-state institutions. International law is incapable of reaching further cosmopolitan goals under a"society of states model, "until it shifts to a model of global community and becomes global public law 26 Jay Mandle and Louis Ferleger refer to this as the need for institutional mechanisms for compensation and control, two fundamental elements of the regulation of global market society. " Preface: Dimensions of Globalization, 570 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. Soc SCI. 8, 16(2000)reality, this often amounts to very little, when it amounts to anything at all: a food package, a blue helmet in the vicinity, and an occasional visit by an international human rights investigator.25 This is not much, but I would suggest that in this we see the germ of a global basic package. What is still missing? There are two fundamental gaps: the absence of effective mechanisms for global wealth transfers at the scale necessary to support the global basic package; and the absence of effective political representation or voice at the global level.26 How we get there, and in the process go from international law to global public law, will require a profound re-examination of core international legal doctrines and institutions such as boundaries, sovereignty, legitimacy, citizenship, and the territorial control of resources. Let me suggest as an example and a starting point, that we must re-think the role of territorial political boundaries. Territorial boundaries now serve as the frame on which we hang various concepts of distributive justice such as citizenship and the territorial control of resources, which profoundly influence the life prospects of all affected individuals. By privileging citizens over non-citizens in terms of access to the global basic package, the political boundary of citizenship dramatically affects our life prospects on the basis of one of the most arbitrary aspects of our natural condition – the place we 25 Indeed, the limited nature of this response has lead commentators such as Jean B. Elshtain to argue that in these particulars there is still no equivalent to the state, citing Ahrendt’s point that the only meaningful site for citizenship remains the state. “Theorizing Globalization in a Time of War: Challenges and Agendas (panel),” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2, 2004 (on file with author). However, I believed this says more about the limits of current theory and politics, than it does about the intrinsic limits of meta-state institutions. International law is incapable of reaching further cosmopolitan goals under a “society of states model,” until it shifts to a model of global community and becomes global public law. 26 Jay Mandle and Louis Ferleger refer to this as the need for institutional mechanisms for compensation and control, two fundamental elements of the regulation of global market society. “Preface: Dimensions of Globalization,” 570 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. 8, 16 (2000). 10