Yes. With the caveat "as long as it's under MY terms." Ask someone else. The answer and caveat will be the same. So how can we keep the "Yes" and remove the caveat?

On the other hand - is that possible? Is it human nature to be tribal? Is there a limit to the size of a tribe? Or is it possible to form larger and larger "tribes" until there is only one?

Individuals are raised (educated / indoctrinated) to belong to a tribe. But if taken at birth and raised in a different tribe their tribal allegiance would be different. But being within a tribe doesn't mean that there is no conflict within the tribe, however small. (Dysfunctional families, for example.)

"Tribes" can be formed from disparate sources when a common enemy appears.

So, unless there is an extra-terrestrial threat to the Earth that causes nations to face the common enemy I see no way to achieve a cosmopolitan, interracial future, at least for several generations.

The push to create a United States of Europe has all the trappings of a grand design (built to the terms of the European Commission members). The problem is that the EC want a U.S.E. in five minutes. Five generations maybe. And then could the USA and USE merge? Another 5 generations. And maybe the rest of the world, slowly, slowly?

But is it possible for global justice to exist without a cosmopolitan, interracial society? Well, then we get onto the definition of "justice". My justice is that it's correct to amputate someone's hand for theft. His justice is that the thief needs counselling. Your justice is that it depends on the enormity of the crime.

So it seems that the ideal of global justice is a chimera, and we must muddle along as best we can.

Little has been written on this subject, but distinction is made between the words ‘justice’ and ‘humanitarian assistance’ because the second is so often referred to when we are discussing international problem areas such as poverty. Proponents of the global justice philosophy would argue that humanitarian assistance does not solve the problems at source and only an international justice system could do that. The cosmopolitan vision completes the picture in that it supports the international, without borders, theory of applying that justice. There has to be some credence given to the problems which arise that are often considered to come under the ‘humanitarian’ banner. Clearly things are, in many cases, not getting better but worse. Achieving social justice is particularly difficult in situations where countries are called upon to provide assistance to others, in whatever form is required, but in truth this is left to be an ethical choice rather than a duty of justice.

Of course, to action the philosophy would involve the agreement of many nations and, even where it was agreed it is difficult to see how it could be enforced, as the recent conflict within Syria and the resultant refugee situation proved. Then, even when countries had signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention, some rescinded their responsibilities.

Courts and the rule of law are the best vision for global justice. There are international courts where heads of state can be brought in front of in exteme circumstances.

There are santions that can be applied at a Global level too by the United Nations such as those being currently considered regarding oil and other supplies to North Korea.

I have no idea what interracial justice means or what the term is expected to represent in this context? Diversity at the court judging level perhaps? Similarly cosmopolitan seems to have little relevance here and maybe something lost in translation.

Global justice systems have been utilised in the past such as post Kosovo, post the collapse of Appartheid in South Africa (the truth and reconciliations hearings) and the war trials after WW2

There is no best or worst vision for global justice because inequality is growing and many armed military conflicts could not be solved. However there are ways that lead towards more fair societies and they include promoting human rights in the multicultural parts of the world with long-term history of inequality and different forms of discrimination. In democratic societies that are functioning based on international law human rights' supporting policies could be successful. In other types of societies that resemble authoritarian and colonial order as well as in democratic societies with strong polarisation trends and high external threats promoting human rights could be costly and risky as they could lead to losses of lives and increase in discrimination. Therefore, future depends on the balance between societies with different levels of democracy.