I started the book by asking a number of questions about global justice. Do we have a duty of justice to contribute to eradicating global poverty and to reducing inequalities? If so, can we apply globally the principles of justice we accept for the domestic domain? One may think that these questions can be answered automatically by taking a stance on the debate between cosmopolitans and statists. I argue in this chapter that answers in this controversy do not automatically settle questions of justice about global distributive issues even when there is agreement about the principles of justice. Even if we start out with a cosmopolitan conception of justice, there are reasons why its distributive principles might not be applicable to certain global distributive questions, if we suppose that their application requires that they should be capable of evaluating distributions and guiding individual action and institutional design. In the course of the argument, I explore the role of economic and political institutions in determining the content of principles of justice, and the way this constrains the applicability of principles of justice. This chapter is structured as follows. First, I outline a version of the cosmopolitan position which is based on a non-relational view of justice. I then show that it does not follow from the non-relational view that principles of distributive justice can be applied to adjudicate distributive questions globally.