"If we look at the historical development of conceptions of justice and legitimacy for the nation-state, it appears that sovereignty usually precedes legitimacy. First there is the concentration of power; then, gradually, there grows a demand for consideration of the interests of the governed, and for giving them a greater voice in the exercise of power. The demand may be reformist, or it may be revolutionary, or it may be a demand for reform made credible by the threat of revolution, but it is the existence of concentrated sovereign power that prompts the demand, and makes legitimacy an issue. War may result in the destruction of a sovereign power, leading to reconfigurations of sovereignty in response to claims of legitimacy; but even in that case the conquerors who exercise power become the targets of those claims."It's interesting to consider the current crop of global institutions, like the WTO or the International Criminal Court, in this light. Right now such institutions seem more focused on carving out sovereignty than on establishing legitimacy, especially if you consider the differential between a small global elite who are setting the agenda and the rest. Perhaps, as Nagel suggests, progress will indeed come through the establishment of (unjust) global institutions followed by growing demands for justice.
Then, if the goal is global justice, should one make compromises to support the establishment and growth of powerful yet unjust global institutions?
