Global governance and cosmopolitan democracy

The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented under a decentralized model of democratic global governance, as espoused elsewhere in this book. All relevant indices point to the necessity of establishing a centralized global political authority with legitimate coercive powers. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a political system can be in any recognizable sense democratic. It seems unconvincing that planetary-wide physical-threat, all-comprehensive macrosecuritization, coupled with deep transformations of international law, global centralization of core decision-making powers, de-stigmatization of nuclear weapons and the like can proceed, succeed, and be implemented in a non-hierarchical international system where planetary defense constitutes only one regime among many, and where states basically remain the decisive actors. Although rationally and scientifically robust, the project suffers from oversimplification, as well as naivety with respect to how both international and domestic politics works. Among other topics, this chapter discusses problems associated with the rule of law and constituent powers, political representation and sources of legitimacy, conditions of multilevel collective action, or limits of theoretical idealization. The general message is that the planetary defense community needs to be more aware of the social and political context of its own enterprise

O curso pretende contemplar aspectos salientes e problemáticos na literatura sobre as principais instituições internacionais contemporâneas, buscando avançar na discussão sobre os potenciais e limites das propostas de ‘democracia global’ (federalismo, confederalismo e policentrismo).  Nesse contexto, instituições serão concebidas como mediadoras da experiência democrática possível no âmbito de um sistema moderno de Estados territoriais e soberanos, cujos regimes políticos estão estruturados a partir de cadeias de hierarquia e autoridade legitimadas (quase invariavelmente) desde a perspectiva doméstica dos atores sociais. Além de enfrentar esse problema fundamental à própria constituição do campo de estudos sobre a democratização em escala mundial, o curso também almeja passar em revista a governança global dos processos políticos em determinadas áreas temáticas, particularmente nos campos da segurança coletiva, da saúde pública, da educação, da cultura, da segurança alimentar, das migrações humanas, do suprimento energético, do meio ambiente, das finanças e das relações laborais. Assim, ao conciliar o exame da questão da democracia global em abstrato com o cotejo das agendas globais por intermédio das normas e práticas incorporadas às grandes instituições internacionais, quer-se oferecer ao cursista uma mirada teoricamente sólida e empiricamente bem informada sobre o estado de coisas na atual política internacional.

This book offers a much-needed new political theory of an old phenomenon. The last decade alone has marked the highest number of migrations in recorded history. Constrained by environmental, economic, and political instability, scores of people are on the move. But other sorts of changes—from global tourism to undocumented labor—have led to the fact that to some extent, we are all becoming migrants. The migrant has become the political figure of our time.

Rather than viewing migration as the exception to the rule of political fixity and citizenship, Thomas Nail reinterprets the history of political power from the perspective of the movement that defines the migrant in the first place. Applying his "kinopolitics" to several major historical conditions (territorial, political, juridical, and economic) and figures of migration (the nomad, the barbarian, the vagabond, and the proletariat), he provides fresh tools for the analysis of contemporary migration.

Kwame Anthony Appiah (London, 1954) is one of the most renowned philosophers of contemporary thought. His work in the field of ethics and moral reach diverse subjects as sexual orientation, nationalism, social discrimination on ethnic or religious reasons and responsibility of governments and international organizations in development and poverty eradication.

Globalization via the digital age is upon us, demanding a new ethics and an intercultural awareness while the dialectics of globalism and cyberspace mandate a committed reflection on what the synthesis between the digital realm and global citizenship entails. In many ways, the borders that previously separated us as citizens physically and culturally have begun to dissipate, replaced by a call for an intercultural accountability and a form of global citizenship that, on one hand, surpasses borders, patriotism, and nationalism alike, but while on the other, demands an understanding and respect for the cultural idiosyncrasies among us, acknowledging the unique existential paradox of universal citizenship that posits each of us as both stranger and citizen on a commonly shared globe.

What is cosmopolitan in the digital age? Is a global digital citizen the same as merely a digital citizen? While talk of digital citizenship has increased in recent years, usually centered on a capitalist drive, encouraging a full electronic participation in society and a responsibility to digital commerce, many questions remain unanswered.  Is the netizen the citizen of a democratic state, and of digital democracy? As a citizen of the world interacting online, how will one’s “rights” and “duties” be determined? And are these “rights” universal, and in such a case, what does “universal” mean? What are the legal parameters of netizenship, and what will they be as globalization further takes hold? Is democracy critical to citizenship, or is it not? What are the political landscapes of global citizenship in the digital age? And last of all, is the concept of digital citizenship even tangible? Is it real?

The new philosophies of the 21st century will be cross-cultural philosophies. The self-critical meeting of cultures will be the driving force behind new forms of philosophical creativity, the newness of thought that arises out of the movement between different ways of attending to the world. New institutional infrastructures are needed, ones in which the distinctive sorts of philosophical innovation that a cross-cultural and cosmopolitan outlook enables are actively cultivated and enhanced.

No weakening, but rather an expansion, of statehood can be observed in the contemporary world. This does not, on the other hand, imply that extensive forms of constitutional ordering do not exist outside the realm of states. Instead, the evolution of world society has been characterized by a protracted dual movement where the expansion and densification of statehood and autonomous forms of transnational ordering gradually emerged in a mutually constitutive fashion. One implication of this is that neither the concept of the state nor the concept of nonstate transnational entities is adequately capable of delineating the object of constitutional analysis. Instead, the concept of normative orders has been introduced as an overarching category capable of identifying the contexts within which constitutional ordering emerges.
Subsequently, a distinction between the internal and external dimensions of the law of normative orders has been introduced, specifying them as respectively oriented towards establishing internal condensation of a given normative order and external compatibility between different normative orders. With this background, a framework for the analysis of constitutional frameworks of normative orders is developed. The central element is a distinction among three dimensions: First, a constitution implies a coupling between a constitutional object, in the form of a hierarchical organization of a given normative order capable of reproducing an autonomous source of authority, and a concordant legal framework. Second, constitutionalization implies a coupling between an internal reconstruction of an external constitutional subject within the constitutional object, and the register of legal rights, establishing a framework for exchanges between the constitutional object and the wider world as represented by the constitutional subject. Third, constitutionalism denotes the institutionalization of a double function, in the form of a principle-based and legally fortified striving toward universal inclusion, providing a sense of direction in time through an articulated form of constitutional consciousness.
The insights developed are briefly illustrated by the case of the global Fairtrade Certification System.

This article offers a conceptualisation of international regimes as a legitimate global political community. A legitimate political community features consensual norms and principles that have been openly debated by interested members of global society. Relying on a critical theoretical method, we argue that by conceptualising certain regimes as public spheres it is possible to apply and interpret practices of Habermasian discourse ethics to this institutional form.

L’ essor des acteurs non étatiques est à l’origine de l’irruption de la notion de société civile en relations internationales. Les avis sont cependant partagés sur l’interprétation de ce phénomène, les uns le voyant comme une réponse fonctionnelle au déclin des capacités régulatrices des États, les autres comme un mouvement contre-hégémonique à la mondialisation néo-libérale, tandis que certains y perçoivent aussi une opportunité de construire une démocratie cosmopolite. Cette note propose d’abord de distinguer ces discours en fonction de leur affiliation à trois traditions théoriques (libérale, marxiste et kantienne) comportant des représentations différentes de la société civile et de son rôle. Elle examine ensuite les défis que ces discours posent à la régulation démocratique de la mondialisation, notamment en termes de légitimité, de représentativité, et de responsabilité des acteurs associés à la régulation sociale internationale.

The growth of non state actors is at the origin of the emergence of the notion of civil society in International Relations. There is, however, a debate about the interpretation of this phenomenon, with some conceiving it as a functional response to the decreasing regulation capacities of states, others as a counterhegemonic movement against neoliberal globalization, while certain authors also see it as an opportunity of building a cosmopolitan democracy. This paper proposes first to distinguish these discourses according to three theoretical traditions (liberal, marxist, and kantian) allowing of different conceptions of « civil society » and its role. We examine then the challenges that these discourses pose to the democratic regulation of globalization, notably in terms of legitimacy, representativity, and accountability of the organizations involved.